Asymmetrical evaluation of ingroup versus outgroup members: a look from an information integration perspective

Abstract

In evaluating ingroup versus outgroup members two types of information can be used: 'Categorizing information' related to the target's group membership and 'individuating information' related to pieces of information specific to the target to be judged. Information integration theory (IIT, Anderson, 1981)

Identity and School Adjustment: Revisiting the "Acting White" Assumption

“…In addition, what does the social psychology literature contribute in terms of acting White as it relates to in-group and out-group affiliations (see Abele & Petzold, 1996;Franco & Maass, 1996;Lindeman, 1997;Mackie & Ahn, 1998;Moy & Ng, 1996;Terry & Callan, 1998), given the general tendency to make stereotyped assumptions about out-groups (Harasty, 1997;Koomen & Dijker, 1997), as well as to view out-groups in a way that is more negative than one's own identified group (Harasty, 1997)? If the process is this complex for Whites as the in-group available as a behavioral model, the data presented suggest that the inference-making process, as experi-28 SPENCER, NOLL, STOLTZFUS, HARPALANI enced by African American adolescents, is even more complex.…”

The Effect of Virtual Team Membership Change on Social Identity Development: A Case from Higher Education in Norway

“…Social identity theory proposes that when developing social identity, group members try to differentiate their own groups from relevant comparison groups and any threats to diminish this differentiation generate attempts to restore the differentiation between groups [7,8]. Perceptions of distinctiveness between groups is a key element that distinguishes the members' group relative to groups the member compares to.…”

Pragmatic use of categorical information in impression formation.

“…These variables include the judge's motivation, specific instructions, and the target information itself (for reviews, see, e.g.. Brewer, 1988;Fiske & Neuberg, 1990;Hamilton & Sherman, 1994). Social identity concerns and a higher power position foster intercategory differentiation (Abele & Petzold, 1996a;Fiske, 1993;Linville & Jones, 1980); accuracy or "justice" concerns, outcome dependency, accountability, and specific instructions to correct for stereotypes reduce it (Kruglanski, 1989;Kruglanski & Freund, 1983;Kunda, 1990;Leyens et al, 1994;Nelson et al, 1990;Neuberg & Fiske, 1987;Tetlock & Kim, 1987;Yzerbyt et al, 1994). The type of category also has an impact, with a higher degree of automaticity fostering intercategory differentiation (Devine, 1989;Nelson et al, 1996).…”