Manuela Barreto

Group virtue: The importance of morality (vs. competence and sociability) in the positive evaluation of in-groups.

Although previous research has focused on competence and sociability as the characteristics most important to positive group evaluation, the authors suggest that morality is more important. Studies with preexisting and experimentally created in-groups showed that a set of positive traits constituted distinct factors of morality, competence, and sociability. When asked directly, Study 1 participants reported that their in-groups morality was more important than its competence or sociability. An unobtrusive factor analytic method also showed morality to be a more important explanation of positive in-group evaluation than competence or sociability. Experimental manipulations of morality and competence (Study 4) and morality and sociability (Study 5) showed that only in-group morality affected aspects of the group-level self-concept related to positive evaluation (i.e., pride in, or distancing from, the in-group). Consistent with this finding, identification with experimentally created (Study 2b) and preexisting (Studies 4 and 5) in-groups predicted the ascription of morality, but not competence or sociability, to the in-group.

You Can’t Always Do What You Want: Social Identity and Self-Presentational Determinants of the Choice to Work for a Low-Status Group

Group members’ choice to work on individual or on group status improvement was examined as a function of degree of ingroup identification (low, high) and accountability of responses (anonymous, accountable to the ingroup). In Experiment 1 (N = 73), in line with the authors’ predictions, accountability elicited progroup behavior among low identifiers, whereas individualistic behavior was displayed when participants were anonymous. No similar effect of accountability was observed for high identifiers, who always chose for group status improvement. Experiment 2(N = 118) replicated and extended these findings. Degree of identification with the ingroup was shown to determine which contextual cues are likely to influence group members’ responses. The integration of traditionally separate models of social influence (self-presentation and social identity) is proposed. It is suggested that degree of identification with a group functions as a moderator of which type of influence the group is able to exert.

The Perils of Political Correctness: Men's and Women's Responses to Old-Fashioned and Modern Sexist Views

In this study we examined the responses of male and female research participants to information about the endorsement of either old-fashioned or modern sexist views by a sample of either men or women. We predicted that expressions of modern sexism may seem unobjectionable but can have negative consequences. Moreover, they can impair behavioral responses and therefore remain unchallenged. The results show that female participants in particular were relatively disinclined to recognize expressions of modern sexism as prejudicial. Furthermore, while old-fashioned sexist views generally elicited hostility, exposure to modern sexist opinions evoked anxiety in female participants, while it decreased anxiety among male participants. We conclude that modern forms of prejudice may prove perilous: although they may undermine the self, they seem inoffensive and as a result remain unchallenged.

The effects of being categorised: The interplay between internal and external social identities

In this chapter, we consider the independent and interactive effects of internal categorisations (how people see themselves) and external categorisations (how they are categorised by others) on social behaviour. Our point of departure is that people do not necessarily accept external categorisations that are imposed upon them (regardless of whether these refer to artificially constructed or naturally occurring groups) and that this affects their willingness to invest in the group. We first outline different reasons people may have to behave in line with externally imposed group memberships. Subsequently, we examine how self-presentation motives may interfere with identity expression, as people consider different social norms, different audiences, and the psychological costs associated with the management of their social identities. We conclude by delineating the conditions under which external categorisations can be internalised by targets, depending on the interplay of multiple identities as well as the way people are treated by others.

Who wants to know? The effect of audience on identity expression among minority group members.

Statements of social identification among ethnic minority members were examined as a function of group membership of the participants, group membership of the audience, and personal identifiability. In Study 1, Turkish migrants and Iranian refugees in the Netherlands expressed their identification with native and host groups as a function of the audience implicit in the language of the questionnaire (native, host). Turks stressed identification both with native and with the host group more to the host audience, whereas Iranians did not. Both groups, but particularly the Turks, emphasized the adaptation problems and associated stress, to the host culture and to the host audience. In Study 2, identification with native and host group was examined among Portuguese migrants in the Netherlands, as a function of audience (native, host) and personal identifiability (anonymous, identifiable). Degree of identification with native and host groups depended both on the audience and on personal identifiability. Results from both studies are explained primarily in terms of strategic self-presentation of identities, determined by the relation between the group and the audience. In general, participants address identity claims to audiences that might question these claims (or are in a position to redress grievances), although because of reality constraints, this is easier when anonymous.

Sharing Moral Values: Anticipated Ingroup Respect as a Determinant of Adherence to Morality-Based (but Not Competence-Based) Group Norms:

This research examines how moral values regulate the behavior of individual group members. It argues that group members behave in line with moral group norms because they anticipate receiving ingroup respect when enacting moral values that are shared by ingroup members. Data from two experimental studies offer evidence in support. In Study 1 (N = 82), morality-based (but not competence-based) ingroup norms determined whether members of a low-status group opted for individual versus collective strategies for status improvement. This effect was mediated by anticipated ingroup respect and emerged regardless of whether group norms prescribed collectivistic or individualistic behavior. These effects were replicated in Study 2 (N = 69), where no comparable effect was found as a result of moral norms communicated by a higher status outgroup. This indicates that social identity implications rather than interdependence or more generic concerns about social approval or importance of cooperation drive these effects.

Morality and behavioural regulation in groups: a social identity approach

In recent years social psychologists have displayed a growing interest in examining morality—what people consider right and wrong. The majority of work in this area has addressed this either in terms of individual-level processes (relating to moral decision making or interpersonal impression formation) or as a way to explain intergroup relations (perceived fairness of status differences, responses to group-level moral transgressions). We complement this work by examining how moral standards and moral judgements play a role in the regulation of individual behaviour within groups and social systems. In doing this we take into account processes of social identification and self-categorisation, as these help us to understand how adherence to moral standards may be functional as a way to improve group-level conceptions of self. We review a recent research programme in which we have investigated the importance of morality for group-based identities and intra-group behavioural regulation. This reveals convergent evidence of the centrality of moral judgements for people’s conceptions of the groups they belong to, and demonstrates the importance of group-specific moral norms in identifying behaviours that contribute to their identity as group members.

THE IMPACT OF ANONYMITY AND GROUP IDENTIFICATION ON PROGROUP BEHAVIOR IN COMPUTER-MEDIATED GROUPS

To contribute to the examination of the effects of computer-mediated communication (CMC) on collaborative work, the impact of anonymity on willingness to exert effort on behalf of a group was examined. Two aspects of anonymity were independently manipulated: visibility of respondents (not visible, visible) and visibility of responses (not visible, visible) to the in-group. The role of degree of identification as moderator of anonymity effects was also examined. The results show that anonymity manipulations affect group members’effort on behalf of the group, but only when group identification is low. Low identifiers chose to work harder with the group either when they were totally anonymous or when they were totally visible to other in-group members. The implications of the results for the understanding of group processes through CMC are discussed.

The Backlash of Token Mobility: The Impact of Past Group Experiences on Individual Ambition and Effort

Two studies investigated the impact of past ingroup experiences on individual aspirations and effort. Participants were told that in the past, members of their group had either been offered no opportunities (closed), few opportunities (token), or equal opportunities (open) to achieve a desired outcome. The results show that past group experiences determine responses to current opportunities and affect the perceived feasibility of individual success as well as individual performance. Exposure to a token system has different effects, depending on whether the group is historically advantaged or disadvantaged. Whereas those with a collective history of success see token mobility as a challenge and show superior performance, the same situation constitutes a threat to members of a historically disadvantaged group, who fail to take advantage of the opportunities offered to them and perform suboptimally.

The dark side of ambiguous discrimination: How state self‐esteem moderates emotional and behavioural responses to ambiguous and unambiguous discrimination

Two experiments examine how experimentally induced differences in state self-esteem moderate emotional and behavioural responses to ambiguous and unambiguous discrimination. Study 1 (N=108) showed that participants who were exposed to ambiguous discrimination report more negative self-directed emotions when they have low compared to high self-esteem. These differences did not emerge when participants were exposed to unambiguous discrimination. Study 2 (N=118) additionally revealed that self-esteem moderated the effect of ambiguous discrimination on self-concern, task performance, and self-stereotyping. Results show that ambiguous discrimination caused participants with low self-esteem to report more negative self-directed emotions, more self-concern, an inferior task performance, and more self-stereotyping, compared to participants in the high self-esteem condition. Emotional and behavioural responses to unambiguous discrimination did not depend on the induced level of self-esteem in these studies.