Disentangling the intergroup sensitivity effect: Defending the ingroup or enforcing general norms?

Abstract

Group members reject threatening outgroup criticism compared to the same criticism from the ingroup (intergroup sensitivity effect [ISE]). Uninvolved bystanders (i.e., members of third groups) also view intergroup criticism as inappropriate. Classic ISE studies were largely underpowered, used inconsequential self-reports, and no study has observed behavioural responses of bystanders versus ingroup members. We argued that norms may elicit self-report responses but only social identity concerns of highly identified ingroup members should motivate costly behaviour. Contrary to our prediction, a high-powered and pre-registered 2 (Source: same-group vs. outgroup) × 2 (Target: ingroup vs. uninvolved outgroup) experiment revealed a classic ISE and an even larger bystander ISE in self-reports and behaviour, favouring a norm account.Moreover, a target effect emerged such that people were more sensitive to criticism targeting an outgroup than their ingroup. Identity thus had an impact, but not in line with social identity theory, highlighting the need for theoretical integration.

Don’t burn our flag: patriotism, perceived threat, and the impact of desecrating a national symbol on intergroup attitudes

“…The desecration of a symbol, whether of the ingroup or of the outgroup, can be perceived as an act of deviance when it is committed by a member of the ingroup. Desecration of an outgroup symbol violates the norm of non-aggression of other groups (Crandall et al, 2002;Thürmer & McCrea, 2021) and may cause a threat to social identity, as shown by our results reporting a greater perceived threat to the group's image when an outgroup (vs. ingroup) flag is burnt. However, our studies confirm that the desecration of an ingroup symbol can also be threatening to certain individuals, who place particular emphasis on the norm of loyalty to the nation: the most blindly patriotic people.…”

“…Desecrating the national symbols of the ingroup is seen as immoral (Haidt et al, 1993) and as an act of disloyalty and disrespect toward the national group (Graham et al, 2011;Welch, 2000). On the other hand, desecrating the symbol of an outgroup violates the norm of non-aggression toward other groups (Crandall et al, 2002;Thürmer & McCrea, 2021). Thus, desecration of both an ingroup and an outgroup symbol can be considered an act of deviance, varying in degree depending on the emphasis placed on either the norm of loyalty or of non-aggression of outgroups, respectively.…”

Supplemental Material for On efficient mass-media messages during the COVID-19 pandemic: The role of expertise and expressed social identity.

“…Moreover, Thürmer et al (2019) observed that group members spent their time counter-arguing outgroup criticism instead of completing their individual work, even when their individual work was intrinsically rewarding (i.e., evaluating funny video clips). A recent preregistered, large-scale replication confirmed the behavioral ISE (Thürmer & McCrea, 2021a). Apparently, outgroup criticism motivates people to engage in costly defensive behaviors.…”

“…As recommended by Funder et al (2014), we assumed a small-to-medium effect of f = .15. Such an effect also provides a conservative estimate of the self-report effects observed in similar past ISE research (Thürmer & McCrea, 2018, 2021a. The analysis resulted in a minimum sample size of N = 600 for the main effect; to account for potential dropouts (see below), we aimed to recruit at least 700 participants.…”

Don’t Burn our Flag: Patriotism, Perceived Threat, and the Impact of Desecrating a National Symbol on Intergroup Attitudes

“…Desecrating the national symbols of the ingroup is seen as immoral (Haidt et al, 1993) and as an act of disloyalty and disrespect toward the national group (Graham et al, 2011;Welch, 2000). On the other hand, desecrating the symbol of an outgroup violates the norm of non-aggression toward other groups (Crandall et al, 2002;Thürmer & McCrea, 2021). Thus, desecration of both an ingroup and an outgroup symbol can be considered an act of deviance, varying in degree depending on the emphasis placed on either the norm of loyalty or of nonaggression of outgroups, respectively.…”