Intergroup emotions.

Why does social psychological research on prejudice change across time? We argue that scientific change is not simply a result of empirical evidence, technological developments, or social controversies, but rather emerges out of social change‐driven shifts in how researchers categorize themselves and others within their larger societies. As mainstream researchers increasingly recategorize former outgroup members as part of a novel ingroup, prejudice research shifts in support of emergent ingroup members against their emergent outgroup opponents. Although social change‐driven science results in valuable opportunities for researchers, it also results in significant risks for research – collective, scientific biases in the inclusion and exclusion of social groups in prejudice research that are not readily detected or managed by traditional controls. We present the Emergent Ingroup Model (EIM) to encourage reflection on shared biases, as well as to spark a broader conversation on how to strengthen our field for a rapidly changing and increasingly global world.

Section: Effects On Scientific Contributionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social psychological research on prejudice as collective action supporting emergent ingroup members

Ferguson

Branscombe

Reynolds

2018

“…Numerous studies have demonstrated the importance of group‐based emotions in explaining actions in response to a threat (e.g., Levin, Kteily, Pratto, Sidanius, & Matthews, ; Mackie, Devos, & Smith, ; Maitner, Mackie, & Smith, ). People identified with a group feel emotions as a group member and these emotions guide intergroup responses (Intergroup Emotions Theory; Mackie et al, ; Mackie & Smith, ; Smith & Mackie, ; Smith & Mackie, ; Smith, Seger, & Mackie, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Group‐based meta‐emotion and emotion responses to intergroup threat

Pauketat

Mackie

Tausch

2019

Self Cite

In a secularizing world, religious groups are increasingly threatened by anti‐religious groups. We present two studies investigating religious peoples’ responses to anti‐religious threats. We expected intergroup threats to shape group‐based emotions and behavioural intentions through a novel pathway whereby threat affects group‐based meta‐emotions: the ingroup’s perception of the outgroup’s emotions towards the ingroup. In Study 1, we experimentally manipulated threat and group salience with participants from two different cultures (British and Latinx/Hispanic). Study 1 demonstrated non‐interactive effects of threat increasing negative emotional responses and of group salience strengthening emotional responses. The results illustrated the role of group‐based meta‐emotions in predicting outgroup‐directed emotions and behavioural response intentions. Study 2 used a different manipulation of threat in an American sample and an identity‐based manipulation of salience to assess the impact of real‐world anti‐religious campaigns involving symbolic and realistic threats. Both threat types increased negative group‐based meta‐emotions, negative outgroup‐directed emotions, desire to respond, and opposition to the anti‐religious campaign compared to no threat. Overall, religious identity salience had little impact on outcomes. The indirect pathway through meta‐emotion replicated, suggesting the importance of considering this novel meta‐emotion pathway in intergroup relations.

“…According to SIT, the self can be construed either on the personal level (personal identity) or on the group level (social identity). Collective emotions are the result of appraisals of the in‐group's action following self‐categorization as a group member (Mackie & Smith, ; Wohl, Branscombe, & KIar, ). Deeds of the in‐group become deeds of the self in this way and the emotional responses to moral failures of an in‐group become comparable to responses to personal failures (Spears et al ., ; Tangney, Stuewig, & Mashek, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Solving the paradox – (further) evidence for a quadratic relationship between in‐group centrality and group‐based guilt

Masson

Barth

2019

Previous research on the relationship between strength of in‐group identification and collective guilt about an in‐group's wrongdoing is mixed, providing evidence for both a negative and a positive relationship. One possible way to reconcile these findings is to explore non‐linear (quadratic) functions. Correlational data (Study 1) and experimental data (Study 2) from two questionnaire studies (Ntotal = 311) were in line with a quadratic relationship between self‐centrality of the in‐group and collective guilt (inverted U‐shaped function). Collective guilt about a group's transgression was highest at medium levels of in‐group centrality and lower for low and high levels of centrality, respectively. Additionally, defensive in‐group beliefs (i.e., beliefs restoring a positive in‐group image) were also associated non‐linearly with in‐group centrality (cubic relation relationship). Our findings call for a more detailed look on possible non‐linear relationships between in‐group identification and collective guilt or in‐group defensiveness.