Threat to the Group’s Image Can Motivate High Identifiers to Take Action Against In-group Transgressions

Abstract

When transgressions are committed by a group, those highly identified with the group are often least likely to recognize the transgressions, feel collective guilt, and engage in action to address them. We hypothesized that especially among high identifiers, demonstrating that in-group transgressions threaten the group's image can induce normative conflict and thus collective guilt and action. In the first study, we demonstrate that high (vs. low) image threat increases normative conflict among high identifiers. In Study 2, we show that inducing normative conflict through image threat leads to increased collective guilt and collective action among high identifiers. In Study 3, we replicate this effect with the addition of a control condition to demonstrate increased normative conflict and collective guilt relative to both a low threat and baseline conditions. In Study 4, we again replicate these effects with a modified manipulation that more precisely manipulated image threat. Together, these studies indicate that image threat can be an effective motivator for high identifiers to address in-group transgressions.

Stepping into Perpetrators’ Shoes: How Ingroup Transgressions and Victimization Shape Support for Retributive Justice through Perspective-Taking With Perpetrators

“…Previous research has produced mixed findings regarding the distinction between glorification and attachment. Although most of the research has demonstrated the detrimental role of glorification—but not attachment—in intergroup conflicts (e.g., Leidner & Castano, 2012; Leidner et al, 2010; Li et al, 2016; Roccas et al, 2006), recent work showed that glorification and attachment moderated conflict attitudes in similar ways (Shuman, Johnson, Saguy, & Halperin, 2018). Future research should thus investigate when and under what conditions these two dimensions of identification play similar or distinct roles.…”

Defensive Partisanship? Evidence that In‐Party Scandals Increase Out‐Party Hostility

“…Furthermore, a social identity explanation for the observed effects assumes participants in these studies were strongly identified with their partisan affiliation since only highly identified individuals are impacted by group‐image threats (Shuman, Johnson, Saguy, & Halperin, 2018). In Study 3, we assess levels of ingroup identification to test this possibility.…”

“…Finally, research suggests that interparty animus is not an inevitable response to ingroup threat. For example, people can cope with ingroup threat by dealing with it directly—either punishing the bad ingroup actor (Halmburger et al, 2012) or otherwise repairing the ingroup's moral image (Shuman et al, 2018). More research is necessary to examine choice of strategy in addressing ingroup moral‐image threat.…”

From uncertain boundaries to uncertain identity: Effects of entitativity threat on identity–uncertainty and emigration

“…can be shrugged off and should not create uncertainty, especially when the criticism comes from an outgroup that the ingroup competes with in terms of identity-related history and about which the ingroup holds negative stereotypes (e.g., ill-intended criticism) (Shuman, Johnson, Saguy, & Halperin, 2018); in such cases, the more likely reaction is anger or hostility toward outgroups that propagate false information. In contrast, any form of identity criticism that one suspects contains a legitimate kernel of truth has the potential to create identity-uncertainty.…”

“…Identity–uncertainty is an epistemic cognition as well as a feeling (Hogg, ) about one's group's normative attributes and social identity, and therefore about what it means to be a member of the group. Criticism of the group's identity that lacks authority and validity can be shrugged off and should not create uncertainty, especially when the criticism comes from an outgroup that the ingroup competes with in terms of identity‐related history and about which the ingroup holds negative stereotypes (e.g., ill‐intended criticism) (Shuman, Johnson, Saguy, & Halperin, ); in such cases, the more likely reaction is anger or hostility toward outgroups that propagate false information. In contrast, any form of identity criticism that one suspects contains a legitimate kernel of truth has the potential to create identity–uncertainty.…”