Linguistic Discrimination in Minimal Groups

Abstract

In line with recent evidence of linguistic discrimination within minimal groups, the present experiment examines the effects of asymmetries of status between minimal groups on linguistic discrimination. Equal-, high-, and low-status groups were created by modifying the standard minimal group condition. Linguistic data were obtained by asking participants to describe a choice (parity vs. in-group favoritism vs. out-group favoritism) made by either an in-group or an out-group member in allocating negative outcomes (i.e., seconds of noise to be listened via earphones). Results showed that high-and lowstatus groups described the out-group in a more biased fashion than did equal-status groups, suggesting that asymmetries of status enhance out-group derogation. This study contributes to evidence of linguistic discrimination in the realm of minimal groups when groups differ in their relative social position.

The effects of linguistic abstraction on evaluations of the speaker in an intergroup context: Using the Linguistic Intergroup Bias makes you a good group member

“…This observation is in line with research showing that ingroup deviants are more disparaged than outgroup deviants when ingroup superiority is undermined (e.g., Marques et al, 2001). Studies have shown that use of the different aspects of the LIB pattern (e.g., for ingroup behaviors vs. outgroup behaviors) may vary according to the aspects of the intergroup context (Maass et al, 1996;Moscatelli, Albarello, & Rubini, 2008). Our results suggest that the normativity of the LIB is also highly context sensitive and may vary with respect to the nature of the intergroup relations.…”

Can We Identify with a Nation Low in Morality? The Heavy Weight of (Im)Morality in International Comparison

“…In Study 2, competence turned out to work as the main predictor of ingroup identification when respondents compared to Romanians, underlining that competence is a more useful dimension of positive comparison than sociability when the outgroup has a lower status. This result is in line with the importance generally assigned to social status and competence in intergroup comparison (Fiske et al, ; Moscatelli, Albarello, & Rubini, ; Tajfel & Turner, ).…”

The Beneficial Role of Multiple Categorization and Intergroup Contact in Reducing Linguistic Out-Group Derogation

“…The results of Study 1 prove evidence on linguistic intergroup discrimination under stereotypic categorizations of in-group and out-group members (Maass, 1999;Maass et al, 1989;Moscatelli et al, 2008Moscatelli et al, , 2014Moscatelli & Rubini, 2011;Wigboldus & Douglas, 2007) and demonstrated for the first time that this tendency disappeared when participants encountered counterstereotypic information on in-group and out-group targets. In other words, the abstraction of positive and negative terms used to describe the target did not vary between the Italian in-group and the Romanian out-group.…”

“…In the stereotypic combination condition, we expected to obtain findings in line with the literature on linguistic intergroup discrimination (e.g., Moscatelli et al, 2008). Participants would describe the stereotypic out-group target using negative terms at a higher abstraction and positive terms at a lower abstraction than the stereotypic in-group target.…”