Michał Bilewicz

The Paradox of In-Group Love: Differentiating Collective Narcissism Advances Understanding of the Relationship Between In-Group and Out-Group Attitudes

OBJECTIVE The present studies test the hypothesis that the overlap between collective narcissism and positive in-group identification conceals the opposite relationships these variables have with out-group derogation. METHOD Five surveys were conducted in different cultural and national contexts, using different samples and different intergroup contexts (Study 1, Polish student sample, N = 85; Study 2, British student sample, N = 81; Study 3, Polish representative sample, N = 979; Study 3, Polish student sample, N = 267 and Study 5, British student sample, N = 241). RESULTS The results of suppression analyses systematically indicate that when the positive relationship between collective narcissism and in-group positivity is controlled for, the non-narcissistic in-group positivity predicts less out-group negativity, whereas collective narcissism predicts more out-group derogation. CONCLUSIONS The results advance our understanding of constructive and destructive forms of in-group positivity and their different consequences for intergroup attitudes.

Nouns Cut Slices: Effects of Linguistic Forms on Intergroup Bias

Three studies examined the effect of nouns and adjectives for designations of nationality on intergroup bias. In Study 1, participants (N = 237) evaluated group artifacts whose authors’ nationality was labeled with nouns or adjectives. Use of nouns enhanced in-group favoritism, manifested as a preference of the in-group artifact. Study 2 (N = 431) tested the effect of nouns and adjectives on attitudes toward the in-group and out-group focusing on the moderating role of in-group identification. Use of nouns led to a stronger relative preference of the in-group, pronounced especially in low identified group members. Study 3 (N = 979) examined the effect of nouns and adjectives in a more applied survey setting. Intergroup bias concerning material restitution for confiscated property was stronger when the ethnicity of the former owners was labeled with nouns. The article emphasizes that subtle variation in language use has a consistent impact on intergroup evaluation.

Complementary stereotyping of ethnic minorities predicts system justification in Poland

We investigate the phenomenon of complementary stereotyping of ethnic minorities in Poland and its relationship to system justification. Using results from a nationally representative survey we test the hypothesis that complementary stereotypes—according to which ethnic minorities are seen as possessing distinctive, offsetting strengths and weaknesses—would be associated with system justification among Polish majority citizens. For four minorities, results indicated that stereotyping them as (a) low in morality but high in competence or (b) high in morality but low in competence predicted greater system justification. These results suggest that even in a context that is low in support for the status quo, complementary stereotyping of ethnic minorities is linked to system justification processes. For the three minority groups that were lowest in social status, complementary stereotyping was unrelated to system justification. It appears that negative attitude towards these groups can be expressed openly, regardless of one’s degree of system justification.

Personal control decreases narcissistic but increases non-narcissistic in-group positivity

OBJECTIVE We examined the effects of control motivation on in-group positivity. Past research suggests that people compensate for low personal control by increasing support for social in-groups. We predicted that the effect of personal control on in-group positivity would depend on the type of in-group positivity. Low personal control should increase compensatory, narcissistic in-group positivity, whereas high personal control should increase secure, non-narcissistic in-group positivity. METHOD These hypotheses were tested in a cross-sectional survey (Study 1 N = 1,083, 54% female, Mage  = 47.68), two experiments (Study 2 N = 105, 50% female, Mage  = 32.05; Study 3 N = 154, 40% female, Mage  = 29.93), and a longitudinal survey (Study 4 N = 398, 51% female, Mage  = 32.05). RESULTS In all studies, personal control was negatively associated with narcissistic in-group positivity but positively associated with non-narcissistic in-group positivity. The longitudinal survey additionally showed that the positive relationship between personal control and non-narcissistic in-group positivity was reciprocal. Moreover, both types of in-group positivity differentially mediated between personal control and out-group attitudes: Narcissistic in-group positivity predicted negative attitudes, and non-narcissistic positivity predicted positive attitudes. CONCLUSIONS These findings highlight the role of individual motivation in fostering different types of in-group positivity and intergroup outcomes.

The lay historian explains intergroup behavior: Examining the role of identification and cognitive structuring in ethnocentric historical attributions

Both historians and lay people attempt to explain national histories. However, psychological research, to date, focused predominantly on the patterns of those explanations with regard to negative historical behaviors. In this article, we assess ethnocentrism of people’s explanations of both negative and positive historical behavior of ingroup members (own nation) and outgroup members (other nation). Two studies analyze how Poles explain crimes and heroic acts committed in the General Government, as well as diverse behaviors during the Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968. The studies confirm an ethnocentric pattern of explanation: positive historical actions of ingroup members were explained more dispositionally than positive actions of outgroup members—negative historical actions of ingroup members were explained less dispositionally than negative historical actions of outgroup members. Furthermore, we found that this effect is more pronounced among individuals who highly identify with their nation. Apart from the influence of the strength of ingroup identification, we found that people who cling to structured knowledge (i.e. a high ability to achieve cognitive closure) tend to explain well-established historical facts (e.g. the Holocaust) but not little known facts (e.g. intervention in Czechoslovakia) in a more ethnocentric way.

Second Language as an Exemptor from Sociocultural Norms. Emotion-Related Language Choice Revisited

Bilinguals often switch languages depending on what they are saying. According to the Emotion-Related Language Choice theory, they find their second language an easier medium of conveying content which evokes strong emotions. The first language carries too much emotional power, which can be threatening for the speaker. In a covert experiment, bilingual Polish students translated texts brimming with expletives from Polish into English and vice versa. In the Polish translations, the swear word equivalents used were weaker than in the source text; in the English translations, they were stronger than in the original. These results corroborate the ERLC theory. However, the effect was only observed for ethnophaulisms, i.e. expletives directed at social groups. It turns out that the main factor triggering the language choice in bilinguals is not necessarily the different emotional power of both languages, but social and cultural norms.

The Dark Side of Emotion Regulation: Historical Defensiveness as an Obstacle in Reconciliation

In recent years, the process model of emotion regulation (Gross, 1998, 2015) has attracted increasing attention of researchers studying group processes and intergroup relations (Goldenberg, Halperin, van Zomeren, & Gross, 2016; Halperin, Russell, Trzesniewski, Gross, & Dweck, 2011). Recent applications of this model to the study of group-based emotions, such as collective guilt, shame, anger, and hope, tend to integrate themain theoretical assumptions of the processmodel of emotion regulationwith intergroup emotion (Smith, 1993), social identity (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), and self-categorization theories (Turner & Reynolds, 2012). Although the main aim of the process model of group-based emotion regulation was to better explain the dynamics and antecedents of collective moral emotion, most empirical research stemming from this approach focuses on practical interventions, such as conflict resolution (Halperin, Cohen-Chen, & Goldenberg, 2014), attitude change (Halperin, Porat, Tamir, & Gross, 2013), and peace processes (Halperin et al., 2011). Cehaji c-Clancy, Goldenberg, Gross, and Halperin (this issue) apply the process model of group-based emotion regulation to the context of postconflict reconciliation. They present evidence that people can successfully downregulate their negative intergroup emotions, such as hatred or anger, and upregulate the positive intergroup emotions, such as guilt or empathy. As the approach proposed by Cehaji c-Clancy and colleagues is based on a solid ground of empirical research analyzing effective interventions in several postconflict regions, it could be used in planning efficient reconciliatory policies that would address the psychological needs of both victims and perpetrators. At the same time, it relies on the assumption that positive intergroup emotions (peace-promoting) are indeed being experienced as positive by individuals—and that the negative intergroup emotions (peace-deteriorating) are experienced as negative by individual people. This assumption seems to contradict the basic tenet of intergroup emotions theory (Mackie, Devos, & Smith, 2000). According to this theory, when social identity is salient, individuals experience emotions on behalf of the ingroup. The valence of experienced emotions is dependent on the group interest—a group-directed threat evokes negative emotions, whereas positive group status evokes positive emotions in individuals. As long as the social identity is salient, the emotion regulation process will be guided by group-level motives rather than by systemic motives (peaceful relations between groups within a social system). The reconciliatory process of emotion regulation proposed by Cehaji c-Clancy et al. (this issue) suggests that the emotion regulation processes can be guided by the systemic motives (more peaceful intergroup relations) instead of group-level motives (positive intergroup distinctiveness) or individual motives (positive self-esteem). On the other hand, it is known that successful emotion regulation processes occurring at both individual (Gross, 2015) and collective levels of self-definition (Goldenberg, Halperin, van Zomeren, & Gross, 2016) can have detrimental effects for the reconciliation process occurring at a systemic level.

Backlash Over Gender-Fair Language The Impact of Feminine Job Titles on Men’s and Women’s Perception of Women

Feminine forms of job titles raise great interest in many countries. However, it is still unknown how they shape stereotypical impressions on warmth and competence dimensions among female and male listeners. In an experiment with fictitious job titles men perceived women described with feminine job titles as significantly less warm and marginally less competent than women with masculine job titles, which led to lower willingness to employ them. No such effects were observed among women.

Embodying imagined contact: Facial feedback moderates the intergroup consequences of mental simulation

Imagined contact is a fruitful strategy of improving intergroup attitudes. There are several mechanisms responsible for the effectiveness of such contact. This article presents a test of an affective mechanism of imagined contact by applying a facial feedback procedure. We used a physical blockade of the zygomaticus major muscle, known to constrain peoples experience of emotional states. Participants imagining intergroup contact expressed more positive attitudes towards an outgroup when they could physically mimic a positive affective state by smiling, but there was no such effect when embodiment was constrained. The interactive effects on attitudes appeared due to greater perception of outgroup warmth. This study presents the first attempt to explain the role of embodiment in the improvement of intergroup relations.

Who defines humanity? Psychological and cultural obstacles to omniculturalism

In this article we discuss the social-psychological limitations of using omniculturalism as a tool to improve intercultural relations between majority and minority groups. The omnicultural imperative suggests that intercultural interactions be framed in terms of human commonalities. This strategy might face severe psychological and cultural obstacles. Due to automatic mechanisms of ingroup projection, such framing might have adverse effects: People tend to construe their concepts of “humanity” based on their impressions about their own group. Such projection has been shown to have detrimental effects on intergroup relations, especially between groups differing in status (such as minority–majority relations). Psychological and anthropological evidence is provided to argue that the lay concept of “humanity” is often used as a tool of ingroup favouritism and discrimination. An extension of the omnicultural imperative is proposed—based on the indefinable character of humanity (inspired by Jahoda’s remarks on the definition of culture and Wittgenstein’s concept of family resemblance) and humananimal similarities.