Linguistic intergroup bias: Differential expectancies or in-group protection?

Abstract

The linguistic intergroup bias describes the tendency to communicate positive in-group and negative out-group behaviors more abstractly than negative in-group and positive out-group behaviors. This article investigated whether this bias is driven by differential expectancies or by in-group protective motives. In Exp 1, northern and southern Italian participants (N=151) described positive and negative behaviors of northern or southern protagonists that were either congruent or incongruent with stereotypic expectancies. Regardless of valence, expectancy-congruent behaviors were described more abstractly than incongruent ones. Exp 2 (N=40) showed that language is used in an equally biased fashion for individuals as previously demonstrated for groups. Exp 3 (N=192) induced expectancies experimentally and found greater abstraction for expectancy-congruent behaviors regardless of valence. All experiments confirmed the differential expectancy approac

Intergroup Bias in Group Judgment Processes: The Role of Behavioral Memories

“…These predictions may be seen as analogous to those of the linguistic intergroup bias (e.g., Hamilton et al, 1992;Maass & Arcuri, 1992;Maass et al, 1995;Maass et al, 1989). However, whereas the linguistic intergroup bias is concerned with perceivers' outward descriptions of particular acts, the proposed judgment bias focuses on the extent to which particular acts are spontaneously considered during the group judgment process.…”

“…Second, perceivers require less evidence to accept an expected versus an unexpected conclusion (Trope & Liberman, 1996). Consistent with these biases, expected behaviors are more likely to yield dispositional inferences than unexpected behaviors (e.g., Bodenhausen & Wyer, 1985;Hastie, 1984;Maass et al, 1995). This research suggests that perceivers may place greater trust in evidence suggesting in-group superiority than inferiority, and may draw corresponding inferences more readily.…”

“…This is due in part to the way that perceivers deal with evidence that is inconsistent with this belief. Such inconsistencies are often isolated, situationalized, or simply explained away (e.g., Hamilton et al, 1992;Hewstone & Jaspers, 1984;Maass & Arcuri, 1992;Maass et al, 1989;Maass et al, 1995;Pettigrew, 1979). As a result, the impact of such information is minimized.…”

“…Contributing to this persistence is the expectation that in-groups will engage in more positive and fewer negative behaviors than out-groups (e.g., Howard & Rothbart, 1980;Maass, Milesi, Zabbini, & Stahlberg, 1995). This expectation has significant implications for intergroup perception.…”

When Do We Communicate Stereotypes? Influence of the Social Context on the Linguistic Expectancy Bias

“…More recently, subsequent research has shown that the LIB can be considered as a specific example of a more general phenomenon. That is, in general, expectancy consistent behaviors are described at a higher level of linguistic abstraction than expectancy inconsistent behaviors (Maass, 1999;Maass, Milesi, Zabbini, & Stahlberg, 1995;Wigboldus et al, 2000). This more general linguistic phenomenon has been labeled the linguistic expectancy bias or LEB (Maass, 1999;Wigboldus et al, 2000).…”