“I know you expect me to favor my ingroup”: Reviving Tajfel's original hypothesis on the generic norm explanation of ingroup favoritism

Iacoviello, Vincenzo; Spears, Russell

doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2018.01.002

Cited by 24 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus emerged his preferred social identity explanation according to which group members discriminate to positively differentiate their group from the out-group. However, in recent research Iacoviello & Spears (2018) resurrected the "generic" norm hypothesis by invoking Cialdini's distinction between descriptive and injunctive norms. Their rationale was that norms prescribing in-group bias and norms prescribing fairness, rather than contradicting each other, refer to different groups or levels of self-categorization and thus different injunctive norms.…”

Section: Social Norms Motivation and Moralitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Influence and Group Identity

Spears

2021

Annu. Rev. Psychol.

Self Cite

143

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter reviews research on the group identity explanation of social influence, grounded in self-categorization theory, and contrasts it with other group-based explanations, including normative influence, interdependence, and social network approaches, as well as approaches to persuasion and influence that background group (identity) processes. Although the review primarily discusses recent research, its focus also invites reappraisal of some classic research in order to address basic questions about the scope and power of the group identity explanation. The self-categorization explanation of influence grounded in group norms, moderated by group identification, is compared and contrasted to other normative explanations of influence, notably the concept of injunctive norms and the relation to moral conviction. A range of moderating factors relating to individual variation, features of the intragroup and intergroup context, and important contextual variables (i.e., anonymity versus visibility, isolation versus copresence) that are particularly relevant to online influence in the new media are also reviewed. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Psychology, Volume 72 is January 4, 2021. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

show abstract

Section: Social Norms Motivation and Moralitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Influence and Group Identity

Spears

2021

Annu. Rev. Psychol.

Self Cite

143

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These results suggest an additional normative explanation for use of the LIB, according to which individuals use the LIB to appear as normative ingroup members, in conformity with the "loyalty norm" (Abrams & Rutland, 2008;Zdaniuk & Levine, 2001). This basic prescriptive group norm can be seen as a determinant of the expression of intergroup bias (Iacoviello & Spears, 2018), as it requires group members to be loyal to and to favor their ingroup, rather than the outgroup, especially in competitive intergroup contexts (Rutland, Killen, & Abrams, 2010).…”

Section: A Normative Per S Pec Tive On the Libmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…When these clues create a climate of tolerance for prejudice, they increase expressions of prejudice (Blanchard, Crandall, Brigham, & Vaughn, 1994;Ford, Wentzel, & Lorion, 2001;Goodman, Schell, Alexander, & Eidelman, 2008). Furthermore, individuals express intergroup bias because they think it is expected from fellow ingroup members and will elicit intragroup approval (Iacoviello & Spears, 2018). Additionally, we expected the perception of biased communicative intentions to play a critical role in the effect approval of an ingroup member who uses the LIB has on the expression of ingroup favoritism by other members.…”

Section: A Normative Per S Pec Tive On the Libmentioning

confidence: 98%

A normative perspective on the linguistic intergroup bias: How intragroup approval of ingroup members who use the linguistic intergroup bias perpetuates explicit intergroup bias

Assilaméhou‐Kunz

Postmes

Testé

2019

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present research examined from a normative perspective how intragroup normative processes regulate the consequences of the linguistic intergroup bias (LIB). Results of three studies supported our hypothesis that intragroup approval of an ingroup member who uses the LIB plays a key role in perpetuating pro-ingroup bias. In Study 1, ingroup members who used pro-ingroup (vs. pro-outgroup) LIB elicited more intragroup approval and this effect was mediated by the perception of the speaker as being biased in favor of the ingroup. In Studies 2 and 3, intragroup approval (vs. disapproval) of an ingroup member who used the LIB enhanced the expression of pro-ingroup bias. By providing the first demonstration of how the LIB relates to intragroup normative processes, our studies highlight a new path by which the LIB helps perpetuate intergroup bias. K E Y W O R D Sintragroup approval, linguistic intergroup bias, normative regulations, pro-ingroup bias, social norms Correction added on 05 October 2019, after first online publication: in the title of this article, "members who use the linguistic intragroup bias" has been corrected to "members who use the linguistic intergroup bias". In the first sentence of the abstract, the second occurrence of "intragroup" has been corrected to "intergroup".

show abstract

“…Researchers have debated various processes that could explain why social categorization leads to discrimination in minimal group studies (see Hewstone et al, 2002, for a review). Tajfel (1970) first offered a norm-based explanation, before devel-oping the social-identity explanation (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) that has since become seminal (but see Iacoviello & Spears, 2018, for a recent reconsideration of the social norm explanation). In minimal group studies, participants show ingroup-serving preferences that resemble well-documented self-serving biases and behaviours.…”

Section: Social Identity Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%