Human Behavior and the Social Environment I Part IV Chapter 6 In-group Favoritism & Prejudice

Chapter Favoritism Prejudice Chapter Favoritism Prejudice 191 Chapter Favoritism Prejudice Review the causes and outcomes of favoritism . Summarize the results of Henri research on minimal groups . Outline the personality and cultural variables that favoritism . We have now seen that social categorization occurs whenever we think about others in terms of their category memberships rather than on the basis of other , more personal information about the individual . And we have seen that social categorization can have a variety of negative consequences for the people who are the targets of our stereotypes . But social categorization becomes even more important , and has even more powerful effects upon our reactions to others , when the categorization becomes more emotionally involving , and particularly when the categorization involves categorization into liked and potentially disliked ( Devine , 2006 ) Because our ancestors lived in small social groups that were frequently in conflict with other groups , it was functional for them to view members of other groups as different and potentially dangerous ( Brewer , 2006 , 2004 ) Differentiating between us and them probably helped keep us safe and free from disease , and as a result , the human brain became very efficient in making these i 193

distinctions ( et , 2011 et , 2000 Van , 2008 , 2008 ) The problem is that these naturally occurring tendencies may lead us to prefer people who are like us , and in some cases even to unfairly reject people from . Liking Us More Than Them Favoritism In his important research on group perceptions , Henri and his colleagues ( Bundy , 1971 ) demonstrated how incredibly powerful the role of is in group perceptions . He found that just dividing people into arbitrary groups produces favoritism the tendency to respond more positively to people from our than we do to people from . In research , small groups of high school students came to his laboratory for a study supposedly concerning artistic tastes . The students were first shown a series of paintings by two contemporary artists , Paul and . Supposedly on the basis of their preferences for each painting , the students were divided into two groups ( they were called the group and the group ) Each boy was told which group he had been assigned to and that different boys were assigned to different groups . But none of them were told the group memberships of any of the other boys . The boys were then given a chance to allocate points to other boys in their own group and to boys in the other group ( but never to themselves ) using a series of payoff matrices , such as those shown in Figure 1217 Examples of Matrices Used in the Minimal Studies of and His Colleagues . The charts divided a given number of rewards between two boys , and the boys thought that the rewards would be used to determine how much each boy would be paid for his participation . In some cases , the division was between two boys in the boy own group ( the ) in other 194 I

cases , the division was between two boys who had been assigned to the other group ( the ) and in still other cases , the division was between a boy in the and a boy in the . then examined the goals that the boys used when they divided up the points . I Is 31 Examples of 13222 14131211 is 15 17 29 in I IS 17 13 19 I I Is 12 14 15 Is Is 22 21 13 21 25 27 29 His Colleagues ( 1970 ) A comparison of the boys choices in the different matrices showed that they allocated points between two boys in the or between two boys in the in an essentially fair way , so that each boy got the same amount . However , fairness was not the predominant approach when dividing points between and . In this case , rather than exhibiting fairness , the boys displayed favoritism , such that they gave more points to other members of their own group in relationship to boys in the other group . For instance , the boys might assign points to the boy and only points to the boy , even though the matrix also contained a choice in which they could give the and the boys 13 points each . In short , the boys preferred to maximize the gains of the other boys in their own group in comparison with the boys in the , even if doing so meant giving their own group members fewer points than they could otherwise have received . Perhaps the most striking part of results is that 195

favoritism was found to occur on the basis of such arbitrary and unimportant groupings . In fact , favoritism occurs even when the assignment to groups is on such trivial things as whether people overestimate or underestimate the number of dots shown on a display , or on the basis of a completely random coin toss ( 1973 , Ortiz , Hepburn , 1980 ) research , as well other research demonstrating favoritism , provides a powerful demonstration of a very important social psychological process Groups exist simply because individuals perceive those groups as existing . Even in a case where there really is no group ( at least no meaningful group in any real sense ) we still perceive groups and still demonstrate favoritism . The Outcomes of Favoritism The tendency to favor their develops quickly in young children , beginning at the age of years and increasing up to about years of age , and almost immediately begins to influence their behavior ( 2003 , 2001 ) Young children show greater liking for peers of their own sex and race and typically play with others after the age of . And there is a norm that we should favor our People like people who express favoritism better than those who are more egalitarian ( 2010 ) favoritism is found for many different types of social groups , in many different settings , on many different dimensions , and in many different cultures ( Bennett et , 2004 , 2011 ) favoritism also occurs on trait ratings , such that members are rated as having more positive characteristics than are members ( 1990 ) People also take credit for the successes of other members , remember more positive than negative information about , are more critical of the performance of than 196

of members , and believe that their own groups are less prejudiced than are ( Shelton , 2005 ) People also talk differently about their than their , such that they describe the and its members as having broad positive traits ( We are generous and friendly ) but describe negative behaviors in terms of the specific behaviors of single group members ( Our group member , Bill , hit someone ) 1996 , 1996 von , Vargas , 1997 ) These actions allow us to spread positive characteristics to all members of our but reserve negative aspects for individual group members , thereby protecting the group image . People also make trait in ways that benefit their , just as they make trait that benefit themselves . This general tendency , known as the ultimate attribution error , results in the tendency for each of the competing groups to perceive the other group extremely and negatively ( 1990 ) When an member engages in a positive behavior , we tend to see it as a stable internal characteristic of the group as a whole . Similarly , negative behaviors on the part of the are seen as caused by stable negative group characteristics . On the other hand , negative behaviors from the and positive behaviors from the are more likely to be seen as caused by temporary situational variables or by behaviors of specific individuals and are less likely to be attributed to the group . Favoritism Has Many Causes favoritism has a number of causes . For one , it is a natural part of social categorize into and because it helps us simplify and structure our environment . It is easy , and perhaps even natural , to believe in the 197

simple idea that we are better than they People who report that they have strong needs for simplifying their environments also show more favoritism ( Leary , 2006 ) favoritism also occurs at least in part because we belong to the and not the ( 1996 ) We like people who are similar to ourselves , and we perceive other members as similar to us . This also leads us to favor other members of our , particularly when we can clearly differentiate them from members of . We may also prefer because they are more familiar to us ( Lee , 2007 ) But the most important determinant of favoritism is simple . We want to feel good about ourselves , and seeing our positively helps us do so ( Brewer , 1979 ) Being a member of a group that has positive characteristics provides us with the feelings of social identity the positive that we get from our group memberships . When we can identify ourselves as a member of a meaningful social group ( even if it is a relatively trivial one ) we can feel better about ourselves . We are particularly likely to show favoritism when we are threatened or otherwise worried about our ( et , 2005 Solomon , 2000 ) And people express higher after they have been given the opportunity to derogate , suggesting that favoritism does make us feel good ( Smith , 1985 Rubin , 1998 ) Furthermore , when individuals feel that the value of their is being threatened , they respond as if they are trying to regain their own expressing more positive attitudes toward and more negative attitudes toward ( Wann , Noel , Coleman , 1993 Spears , 1997 ) and Spencer ( 1997 ) found that participants expressed less prejudice after they had been given the opportunity to affirm and make salient an important and positive part of their own . In short , when our group seems to be good , we feel good when our group seems to be bad , we feel bad . 198

In some cases , we may be able to feel good about our group memberships even when our own individual outcomes are not so positive . Silvia , and ( 2000 ) had groups of female college students perform a creativity task and then gave them feedback indicating that although they themselves had performed very poorly , another woman in their group had performed very well . Furthermore , in some experimental conditions , the women were told that the research was comparing the scores of men and women ( which was designed to increase categorization by gender ) In these conditions , rather than being saddened by the upward comparison with the other woman , participants used the successful performance of the other woman to feel good about themselves , as women . When Favoritism Does Not Occur Although people have a general tendency to show favoritism , there are least some cases in which it does not occur . One situation in which favoritism is unlikely is when the members of the are clearly inferior to other groups on an important dimension . The players on a baseball team that has not won a single game all season are unlikely to be able to feel very good about themselves as a team and are pretty much forced to concede that the are better , at least as far as playing baseball is concerned . Members of groups show less favoritism than do members of groups and may even display favoritism , in which they admit that the other groups are better than they are ( Clark Clark , 1947 ) Another case in which people judge other members of the very negatively occurs when a member of one own group behaves in a way that threatens the positive image of the . A student who behaves in a way unbecoming to university students , or a teammate who does not seem to value the importance of the team , 199

is disparaged by the other group members , often more than the same behavior from an member would be . The strong devaluation of members who threaten the positive image and identity of the is known as the black sheep effect . Personality and Cultural of Favoritism To this point , we have considered favoritism as a natural part of everyday life . Because the tendency to favor the is a normal byproduct of , most people do , by and large , prefer their over . And yet not everyone is equally in all situations . There are a number of individual difference measures that predict prejudice , and these differences become particularly likely to show up under circumstances in which the desire to protect the self becomes important ( 2003 ) Some people are more likely than others to show favoritism because they are particularly likely to rely on their group memberships to create a positive social identity . These differences in group identification can be measured through measures such as the Collective Scale ( Crocker , 1992 ) The scale assesses the extent to which the individual values his or her memberships in groups in public and private ways , as well as the extent to which he or she gains social identity from those groups . People who score higher on the scale show more favoritism in comparison with those who score lower on it ( Thompson , 2002 ) The scale , from and Crocker ( 1992 ) is shown in Table 122 The Collective Scale . Table The Collective Scale 200

I am a worthy member of the social groups I belong to . I feel I don have much to offer to the social groups I belong to . Membership I am a cooperative participant in the social groups I belong to . I often feel I an unclean member of my social group . I often regret that I belong to some of the social groups I do . In general , I glad to be a member of the social groups I Private belong to . Overall , I often feel that the social groups of which I am a member are not worthwhile . I feel good about the social groups I belong to . Overall , my social groups are considered good by others . Most people consider my social groups , on the average , to be more ineffective than other social groups . Public In general , others respect the social groups that I am a member of . In general , others think that the social groups I am a member of are unworthy . Overall , my group memberships have very little to do with how I feel about myself . The social groups I belong to are an important reflection of who I am . Identity The social groups I belong to are unimportant in my sense of what kind ofa person I am . In general , belonging to social groups is an important part of my . Item is reversed before scoring . Another personality dimension that relates to the desires to protect and enhance the self and the and thus also relates to greater favoritism , and in some cases prejudice toward , is the personality dimension of authoritarianism ( Sanford , 1950 , 1988 ) Authoritarianism is a personality dimension that characterizes people who prefer things to be simple rather than complex and who 201

tend to hold traditional and conventional values . are in part because they have a need to and in part because they prefer simplicity and thus find it easy to think simply We are all good and they are all less good . Political conservatives tend to show more favoritism than do political liberals , perhaps because the former are more concerned with protecting the from threats posed by others ( 2003 Leary , 2006 ) People with strong goals toward display less and less prejudice . People who view it as particularly important to connect with and respect other who are more focused on tolerance and fairness toward less and more positive toward the of groups other than their own . The desire to be fair and to accept others can be assessed by individual difference measures such as desire to control one prejudice ( Plant Devine , 1998 ) and humanism ( 1988 ) Social orientation ( is a personality variable that refers to the tendency to see and to accept inequality among different groups ( 1995 ) People who score high on measures of believe that there are and should be status dif among social groups , and they do not see these as wrong . High individuals agree with statements such as Some groups people are simply inferior to other groups , In getting what you want , it is sometimes necessary to use force against other groups , and It OK if some groups have more of a chance in life than Those who are low on , on the other hand , believe that all groups are relatively equal in status and tend to disagree with these statements . People who score higher on also show greater favoritism . Stereotyping and prejudice also varies across cultures . Rodgers , Williams , Hamilton , Peng , and Wang ( 2007 ) tested the hypothesis that Chinese participants , because of their collectivist orientation , would find social groups more important than would Americans ( who are more individualistic ) and that as a result , they 202

would be more likely to infer personality traits on the basis of group is , to stereotype . Supporting the hypothesis , they found that Chinese participants made stronger stereotypical trait inferences than Americans did on the basis of a target membership in a fictitious group Summary favoritism is a fundamental and functional aspect of human perception , and it occurs even in groups that are not particularly meaningful . favoritism is caused by a variety of variables , but particularly important is We experience positive social identity as a result of our membership in valued social groups . favoritism develops early in children and influences our behavior toward and members in a variety of ways . Personality dimensions that relate to favoritism include authoritarianism and social dominance that relate to less favoritism include a desire to control one 203

prejudice and humanism . There are at least some cultural differences in the tendency to show favoritism and to stereotype others . Consider some of the important social groups to which you belong . Do your group memberships lead to favoritism or even prejudice ?

Describe a time when the members of one of your important social groups behaved in a way that increased group identity ( showing the black sheep effect ) What was the outcome of the actions ?

References , 2003 ) The formation of favoritism and group prejudice in young children Are they distinct attitudes ?

Developmental Psychology , 39 ( 2001 ) Developmental and socialization influences on bias . In Brown 204 ( handbook in social psychology ( Vol . New York , NY . Sanford , 1950 ) The authoritarian personality . New York , NY Harper . 1988 ) Enemies of freedom Understanding authoritarianism . San Francisco , CA . Devine , 2006 ) Stereotyping and evaluation in implicit race bias Evidence for independent constructs and unique effects on behavior . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 91 , Bennett , Barrett , Lyons , 2004 ) Young children evaluations of the and of A study . Social Development , 13 ( doi . 1973 ) Social categorization and similarity in behavior . European Journal of Social Psychology , Wann , Noel , Coleman , 1993 ) or extremity Importance of the threatened social identity . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 19 , Brewer , 1979 ) bias in the minimal situation A analysis . Psychological Bulletin , 86 , Brewer , 2006 ) An evolutionary perspective on social identity Revisiting groups . In , Simpson , Evolution and social psychology ( New York , NY Psychology Press . 1996 ) and differentiation processes in the minimal group setting . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 70 ( 2010 ) Striving for difference On the spontaneous preference for members who maximize positive distinctiveness . European Journal of Social Psychology , 40 ( doi . 205

Clark , Clark , 1947 ) Racial identification and preference in Negro children . In , Hartley ( Readings in social psychology ( New York , NY Holt , Winston . Spencer , 1997 ) Prejudice as maintenance Affirming the self through of Personality and Social Psychology , 73 , 2003 ) Does social dominance generate prejudice ?

Integrating individual and contextual of . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 84 ( doi . 1990 ) The ultimate attribution error ?

A review of the literature on causal attribution . European Journal of Social Psychology , 20 ( 2003 ) Political conservatism as motivated social cognition . Psychological Bulletin , 129 ( 1988 ) Racial ambivalence and American value conflict Correlational and priming studies of dual cognitive of Personality and Social Psychology , 55 , Smith , 1985 ) discrimination and esteem in the minimal group paradigm . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 49 , Ortiz , Hepburn , 1980 ) Social categorization and discriminatory behavior Extinguishing the minimal discrimination effect . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 39 ( doi . Crocker , 1992 ) A collective scale of one social identity . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 18 , 1996 ) Language and stereotyping . In , Stereotypes and stereotyping ( New York , NY Press . 206

, 1996 ) Linguistic bias Evidence for motivation . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 71 ( Martinez , Santos , 2011 ) The evolution of bias Perceptions and attitudes in rhesus macaques . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 100 ( doi . Becker , Robertson , 2005 ) Functional projection How fundamentally social motives can bias interpersonal perception . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 88 , A . 2004 ) Anxiety and bias Terror management or coalitional psychology ?

Group Processes Relations , Connor , Gore , 2000 ) Performance on indirect measures of race evaluation predicts amygdala activation . Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience , 12 ( 2011 ) A comparison of minimal group induction procedures . Group Processes and Relations , 14 ( Plant , Devine , 1998 ) Internal and external motivation to respond without of Personality and Social Psychology , 75 ( 1995 ) Social dominance orientation A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 67 , Rubin , 1998 ) Social identity theory esteem hypothesis A review and some suggestions for clarification . Personality and Social Psychology Review , Silvia , 2000 ) The intersection of maintenance and social identity 207

theories judgment in interpersonal and . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 26 ( 12 ) Shelton , A . 2005 ) contact and pluralistic ignorance . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 88 ( Solomon , 2000 ) Pride and prejudice Fear of death and social behavior . Current Directions in Psychological Science , Spears , 1997 ) in the face of threats to group status and distinctiveness The role of group identification . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 23 , Williams , Hamilton , Peng , Wang , 2007 ) Culture and group perception Dispositional and stereotypic inferences about novel and national groups . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 93 ( Leary , 2006 ) beliefs Investigations from the social side . Advances in Experimental Social Psychology , 38 , Thompson , 2002 ) Needs for cognitive economy and as unique of attitudes . European Journal of Social Psychology , 32 ( doi . 1970 ) Experiments in discrimination . Scientific American , 223 , Bundy , 1971 ) Social categorization and behavior . European Journal of Social Psychology , Van , 2008 ) Evolutionary approaches to group dynamics An introduction . Group Dynamics Theory , Research , and Practice , 12 ( von , Vargas , 1997 ) The linguistic bias as an implicit indicator of prejudice . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 33 ( 208

, 2008 ) underpinnings of face perception Further evidence of distinct person and group perception of Personality and Social Psychology , 94 ( Lee , 2007 ) The contribution of face familiarity to favoritism and stereotyping . Social Cognition , 25 ( doi Attribution Adapted from Chapter from Principles of Social Psychology by the University of Minnesota under the Creative Commons International License , except where otherwise noted . 209