Social perception as induction and inference: An integrative model of intergroup differentiation, ingroup favoritism, and differential accuracy.

Abstract

Three general properties of social stereotypes are the perception of differences between ingroups and outgroups (intergroup differentiation), the perception of ingroups as having more desirable attributes than outgroups (ingroup favoritism), and the greater accuracy of ingroup perceptions (differential accuracy). We present and test an inductive-reasoning model that accounts for all 3 phenomena, and we explicate the relations among them. Based on empirical evidence, the model assumes that most people have a positive self-image, that they project these self-images more strongly to ingroups than to outgroups, and that their self-images are valid cues for judgments about social groups. Two minimal-group experiments using a crossed-categorization paradigm support the model and provide new evidence for underlying psychological processes.

Efficiency and defense motivated ingroup projection: Sources of protoypicality in intergroup relations

“…For instance, information about ingroups is usually more accessible than information about outgroups(e.g. Gramzow, Gaertner, & Sedikides, 2001;Vanhoomissen & Van Overwalle, 2010) which might lead individuals to make stronger and/or faster associations when the target variable concerns ingroup vs. outgroup (Sibley & Barlow, 2009).Thus, as with social projection (Mullen & Hu, 1988), ingroup projection might not always be directionally socially motivated but sometimes might result from efficiency motivated information processing (Kruglanski & Sleeth-Keppler, 2007).…”

How pain empathy depends on ingroup/outgroup decisions: A functional magnet resonance imaging study

“…Decisions concerning ingroup membership are a result of social categorization and stereotyping (Tajfel et al, 1971;Jost and Hamilton, 2005). Another explanation is that decisions concerning ingroup membership depend on social projection (the tendency to expect similarity between oneself and others) (Bianchi et al, 2009;DiDonato et al, 2011), as well as shared group norms and congruence with these values (Amiot et al, 2012). The fit between one's emotional reaction towards a certain situation and the emotional reaction of ingroup members influences the self-categorization as a member of that group (Livingstone et al, 2011).…”

Why Do Women Still Not Make It to the Top? Dominant Organizational Ideologies and Biases by Promotion Committees Limit Opportunities to Destination Positions

“…This hostility takes the form of an inability to empathize with members of out-groups (Struch and Schwartz 1989). Research also confirms that out-group discrimination is often a byproduct of ingroup preferential treatment (Brewer 1999;DiDonato et al 2011;Hogg 2003;Tsui et al 2002).…”

“…Although not focused on promotion decisions, a long stream of research demonstrates that in-group favoritism is prevalent across myriad situations and cultures (DiDonato et al 2011;Hogg 2003;Tajfel and Turner 1986) and affects decision-making in organizational settings. Correspondingly, the degree to which individuals are identified with their ingroup will also determine their out-group hostility.…”