Daan Scheepers

Seeing one thing and doing another : Contrast effects in automatic behavior

Research on automatic behavior demonstrates the ability of stereotypes to elicit stereotype-consistent behavior. Social judgment research proposes that whereas traits and stereotypes elicit assimilation, priming of exemplars can elicit judgmental contrast by evoking social comparisons. This research extends these findings by showing that priming exemplars can elicit behavioral contrast by evoking a social comparison. In Study 1, priming professor or supermodel stereotypes led, respectively, to more and fewer correct answers on a knowledge test (behavioral assimilation), but priming exemplars of these categories led to the reverse pattern (behavioral contrast). In Study 2, participants walked away faster after being primed with an elderly exemplar. In Study 3, the proposition that contrast effects reflect comparisons of the self with the exemplar was supported.

Diversity in in-group bias: Structural factors, situational features,and social functions

Four experiments addressed the different forms and functions of in-group bias in different contexts. The authors proposed 2 functions: an identity-expressive function and an instrumental function (or promotion of positive social change). The authors manipulated status differentials, the stability of these differences, and the communication context (intra- vs. intergroup) and measured in-group bias and both functions. As predicted, identity expression via in-group bias on symbolic measures was most important for stable, high-status groups. By contrast, material in-group bias for instrumental motives was most prevalent in unstable, low-status groups but only when communicating with in-group members. This latter effect illustrates the strategic adaptation of group behavior to audience (i.e., displaying in-group bias may provoke the out-group and be counterproductive in instrumental terms). Stable, low-status groups displayed more extreme forms of in-group bias for instrumental reasons regardless of communication context (i.e., they had nothing to lose). Results are discussed in terms of a contextual-functional approach to in-group bias.

Two Functions of Verbal Intergroup Discrimination: Identity and Instrumental Motives as a Result of Group Identification and Threat

In two studies, the authors examined the circumstances under which discrimination has an identity confirmation function or an instrumental function (instigating collective action). In Study 1, participants (N = 601) described a situation in which they had discriminated and then completed measures of functionality, group identification, and group threat. Both functions were predicted by group identification, whereas the instrumental function (but not identity confirmation) operated under group threat. In Study 2, “die-hard” soccer fans (N = 1,546) suggested soccer chants in reaction to either a group-reinforcing (own team scores) or group-threatening (other team scores) situation and rated the perceived functionality of the song. Although both of these conditions evoked discriminating songs, as predicted, these served a more identity-confirming function in the reinforcing situation but a more instrumental function (pepping up the team) in the threat situation. Results are discussed in terms of a contextual-functional model of intergroup discrimination.

Integrating Identity and Instrumental Approaches to Intergroup Differentiation: Different Contexts, Different Motives

In two experiments, the authors examined the interplay of two functions of intergroup differentiation: an identity function (obtaining a distinct and meaningful social identity) and an instrumental function (advancing group goals). In Experiment 1, in minimal and thus relatively meaningless groups, participants differentiate (identity function), but those with a group goal differentiated more strongly later on than those without (instrumental function). In Experiment 2, both the possibility to differentiate and the presence of a group goal were manipulated orthogonally. Highest differentiation (and cohesion and identification) resulted in the minimal condition (no goal, no prior differentiation opportunity) and in the instrumental condition (goal and prior differentiation opportunity). Mediation analyses and a group effort measure provided evidence for the different functions proposed to underlie differentiation in these two cases. The authors propose an integration between social identity and interdependence approaches to group differentiation: Different conditions promote differentiation for different reasons.

The social functions of ingroup bias: Creating, confirming, or changing social reality

We describe our motivational analysis of ingroup bias. Central to our approach are two functions of ingroup bias: an identity function (the creation and expression of ones social identity) and an instrumental function (the facilitation of intergroup competition and social change). We present a research programme on the determinants of these two functions in which we have focused on socio-structural factors (group status and status stability), psychological factors (group identification and threat), and strategic considerations concerning the audience to which ingroup bias is communicated. In addition, we relate the different functions of ingroup bias to different forms of ingroup bias (symbolic versus material forms of ingroup bias; ingroup favouritism versus outgroup derogation). Our conclusions centre on the social and diverse nature of motivations underlying ingroup bias, and the integration of identity and instrumental perspectives on this phenomenon.

The Implications of Value Conflict How Disagreement on Values Affects Self-Involvement and Perceived Common Ground

This article presents two studies demonstrating the implications of having different values (vs. interests) in a situation where people take opposite positions. Study 1 examined how people respond to a range of conflict issues that were framed either as referring to conflicting values or as referring to conflicting interests. Study 2 used a more immersive methodology, in which participants were led to consider either their values or interests in taking up a particular position, after which they were presented with a confederate who took up the opposite position. Results of both studies converge to demonstrate that framing a particular conflict issue in terms of values causes people to experience more self-involvement and to perceive less common ground. This result can be seen as a potential explanation of why value conflicts tend to escalate more easily than conflicts of interests and also offers scope for interventions directed at value conflict resolution.

Eager to be the Best, or Vigilant Not to Be the Worst: The Emergence of Regulatory Focus in Disjunctive and Conjunctive Group Tasks

In two experiments we examined the emergence of regulatory focus in group members resulting from the characteristics of a group task (disjunctive vs. conjunctive). Our central hypothesis was that disjunctive group tasks lead group members to adopt a promotion focus, and conjunctive group tasks lead group members to adopt a prevention focus. In Experiment 1, we used virtual groups to manipulate the interdependence structure of a group task (disjunctive vs. conjunctive). We assessed participants’ self-reported regulatory focus, and examined their task behavior. Experiment 2 addressed face-to-face interacting groups and examined the regulatory focus-specific emotions participants experienced as a result of the interdependence structure of the task, as well as their task performance. Results were partly in line with predictions demonstrating the emergence of a promotion focus in disjunctive group tasks, but no parallel effects for conjunctive group tasks. We connect our findings to the literature on regulatory focus theory and group dynamics and discuss the practical implications for team functioning and performance.

Cardiovascular reactivity and resistance to opposing viewpoints during intragroup conflict.

This study examined how the outcomes of joint decision making relate to cardiovascular reactions when group members disagree about the decision to be taken. A conflict was experimentally induced during a joint decision-making task, while cardiovascular markers of challenge/threat motivational states were assessed following the biopsychosocial model of challenge and threat (BPSM; J. Blascovich, 2008). Results show that individuals were less likely to adjust their initially preferred decision alternative the more they exhibited a cardiovascular pattern indicative of threat (i.e., relatively high total peripheral resistance and low cardiac output) compared to challenge. This finding extends the BPSM by showing a link between threat and rigidity, and emphasizes the importance of psychophysiological processes for studying intragroup conflict and decision making.

The cortisol response to anticipated intergroup interactions predicts self-reported prejudice.

Objectives While prejudice has often been shown to be rooted in experiences of threat, the biological underpinnings of this threat–prejudice association have received less research attention. The present experiment aims to test whether activations of the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, due to anticipated interactions with out-group members, predict self-reported prejudice. Moreover, we explore potential moderators of this relationship (i.e., interpersonal similarity; subtle vs. blatant prejudice). Methodology/Principal findings Participants anticipated an interaction with an out-group member who was similar or dissimilar to the self. To index HPA activation, cortisol responses to this event were measured. Then, subtle and blatant prejudices were measured via questionnaires. Findings indicated that only when people anticipated an interaction with an out-group member who was dissimilar to the self, their cortisol response to this event significantly predicted subtle (r = .50) and blatant (r = .53) prejudice. Conclusions These findings indicate that prejudicial attitudes are linked to HPA-axis activity. Furthermore, when intergroup interactions are interpreted to be about individuals (and not so much about groups), experienced threat (or its biological substrate) is less likely to relate to prejudice. This conclusion is discussed in terms of recent insights from social neuroscience.

Power in group contexts: the influence of group status on promotion and prevention decision making.

This research examines how group status affects the impact of individual power positions on promotion versus prevention choices in group decision making. We consider that high power not only implies control, but also indicates responsibility for the achievement of group goals. We argue that the nature of these goals depends on the current status of the group. In Experiment 1, individuals who were accorded high power showed more promotion-oriented decisions in the low group status condition while decisions were more prevention oriented under high group status. Experiment 2 replicated these effects, and further demonstrated that they only emerge when those in power are explicitly made accountable for the achievement of group goals. These results are discussed in relation to regulatory focus theory, power theories, and the role of social identities and group goals in group dynamics.