Are Immigrant-Origin Candidates Penalized Due to Ingroup Favoritism or Outgroup Hostility?
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Portmann L
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8649818 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Ingroup favoritism has been widely verified in the context of intergroup competition; however, how competition among ingroup members affects ingroup favoritism remains unclear. We hypothesized that competition among ingroup members may disrupt individuals' ingroup-favoring behavior because of conflicts of interest; we tested this hypothesis in two studies. In Study 1, we manipulated competitive intragroup outcome interdependence (present vs. absent) and the manner in which results were presented (public vs. anonymous). We found that regardless of result presentation, when competitive intragroup outcome interdependence was present, ingroup members did not exhibit ingroup favoritism; when such interdependence was absent, they showed ingroup favoritism. In Study 2, we introduced the manipulation of social identification, and reverified the main result that individuals under competitive intragroup outcome interdependence do not exhibit ingroup favoritism. Even the degree of social identification-a vital factor for intergroup behavior-could not moderate the destructive effect of competitive intragroup outcome interdependence on ingroup favoritism. Together, these findings indicate that ingroup favoritism would indeed be damaged by competition among ingroup members.
| S-EPMC6265441 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In two comprehensive and fully incentivized studies, we investigate the development of ingroup favoritism as one of two aspects of parochial altruism in repeated social dilemmas. Specifically, we test whether ingroup favoritism is a fixed phenomenon that can be observed from the very beginning and remains stable over time, or whether it develops (increases vs. decreases) during repeated contact. Ingroup favoritism is assessed through cooperation behavior in a repeated continuous prisoner's dilemma where participants sequentially interact with 10 members of the ingroup (own city and university) and subsequently with 10 members of the outgroup (other city and university), or vice versa. In none of the experiments do we observe initial differences in cooperation behavior for interaction partners from the ingroup, as compared to outgroup, and we only observe small differences in expectations regarding the interaction partners' cooperation behavior. After repeated interaction, however, including a change of groups, clear ingroup favoritism can be observed. Instead of being due to gradual and potentially biased updating of expectations, we found that these emerging differences were mainly driven by the change of interaction partners' group membership that occurred after round 10. This indicates that in social dilemma settings ingroup favoritism is to some degree dynamic in that it is enhanced and sometimes only observable if group membership is activated by thinking about both the interaction with the ingroup and the outgroup.
| S-EPMC4411968 | biostudies-literature
Project description:People show a strong aversion to inequality and are willing to sacrifice their own interests to punish violations of fairness norms. Empirical research has found that group membership could influence the fairness judgment and norm enforcement of the individuals but has shown inconsistent findings and has not focused much on the potential moderators. Here, the two studies aimed to investigate whether victim sensitivity and proposal size moderate the impact of group membership on reactions to unfair proposals. In both studies, the participants with different victim sensitivity (low vs. high group) played the hypothetical (Study 1) and incentivized (Study 2) ultimatum game under the intragroup and intergroup condition and indicated their responses to the different proposals. Results showed that, regardless of the victim sensitivity, ingroup member is often given preferential and positive treatment. Low victim sensitive persons are more likely to accept unfair offers from the ingroup than the outgroup, while this effect was attenuated for those with high victim sensitivity, especially for highly ambiguous unfair offers (offer 6:4 in Study 1 and 8:2 in Study 2). Moreover, the ingroup favoritism score for ambiguous unfair offers was smaller for high compared with the victim sensitivity group. Taken together, the victim sensitivity, and proposal size could moderate the ingroup favoritism on responses to unfairness.
| S-EPMC8511311 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We report on two studies investigating the motivations ("ingroup love" and "outgroup hate") underlying individual participation in intergroup conflict between natural groups (fans of football clubs, supporters of political parties), by employing the Intergroup Prisoner's Dilemma Maximizing-Difference (IPD-MD) game. In this game group members can contribute to the ingroup (at a personal cost) and benefit ingroup members with or without harming members of an outgroup. Additionally, we devised a novel version of the IPD-MD in which the choice is between benefiting ingroup members with or without helping members of the outgroup. Our results show an overall reluctance to display outgroup hate by actively harming outgroup members, except when the outgroup was morality-based. More enmity between groups induced more outgroup hate only when it was operationalized as refraining from help.
| S-EPMC4518042 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Anti-immigration rhetoric in the mass media has intensified over the last two decades, potentially decreasing prosocial behavior and increasing outgroup hostility toward immigrants, and fostering ingroup favoritism toward natives. We aim to understand the effects of negative and positive discourses about immigration on prosociality at different levels of societal ethnic diversity. In two studies (student sample, nationally representative sample), we conduct a survey and a 3X3 between-subject experiment, including money-incentivized behavioral games measuring prosociality. We manipulate media representations of immigrants and the probability of interacting with immigrants (the latter measuring diversity). Results show that negative news affects prosociality as a function of the probability of interacting with immigrants. Negative portrayals increase altruism and trustworthiness in ethnically homogenous settings relative to unknown and ethnically-mixed contexts. These results are stronger for right-wing and high-prejudice respondents. Moreover, negative media portrayals of immigrants increase the testosterone-cortisol ratio, which is a proxy for proneness to social aggression. Negative news also increases outgroup-related perceived health risk, outgroup anxiety and outgroup threat less in ethnically-homogeneous contexts. Overall, negative portrayals of immigrants generate physiological and emotional hostility toward the outgroup, and ingroup favoritism in economic transactions, possibly determining efficiency losses in ethnically-diverse markets, relative to ethnically-homogeneous markets.
| S-EPMC8361166 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Outgroup threat has been identified as an important driver of ingroup cohesion in humans, but the evolutionary origin of such a relationship is unclear. Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) in the wild are notably aggressive towards outgroup members but coordinate complex behaviors with many individuals in group hunting and border patrols. One hypothesis claims that these behaviors evolve alongside one another, where outgroup threat selects for ingroup cohesion and group coordination. To test this hypothesis, 5 groups of chimpanzees (N = 29 individuals) were observed after hearing either pant-hoots of unfamiliar wild chimpanzees or control crow vocalizations both in their typical daily environment and in a context of induced feeding competition. We observed a behavioral pattern that was consistent both with increased stress and vigilance (self-directed behaviors increased, play decreased, rest decreased) and increased ingroup cohesion (interindividual proximity decreased, aggression over food decreased, and play during feeding competition increased). These results support the hypothesis that outgroup threat elicits ingroup tolerance in chimpanzees. This suggests that in chimpanzees, like humans, competition between groups fosters group cohesion.
| S-EPMC7904213 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Using representative probabilistic samples of Portuguese citizens and framed by an intergroup perspective, we carried out two studies aiming to address how national identification and belief in a just world (BJW) jointly predict secondary victimization of an ingroup as a whole (specifically ingroup blame). We conducted Study 1 (N = 779) in 2014, at the height of the European austerity policies imposed on Portugal by an institutional outgroup, specifically the Troika (the European Union, the European Central Bank, and the International Monetary Fund). Study 2 (N = 1140) was conducted after the Troika intervention. An environment of ongoing ingroup suffering caused by an outgroup is more threatening for the BJW of individuals who are more identified with the ingroup. We therefore predicted and found that BJW was positively associated with ingroup blame in participants higher in national identification when the victimization provoked by an institutional outgroup was higher (Study 1). However, when the suffering caused by the outgroup decreased, the association between BJW and secondary victimization was not moderated by individuals' national identification (Study 2). Indeed, a three-way interaction was found between BJW, national identification, and social context (high vs. low victimization). These results are an important contribution for the literature about justice motivation in terms of intergroup relations, because they show that secondary victimization produced by a threat to BJW has a group-based identity function.
| S-EPMC6066548 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Are male and female immigrants viewed similarly or differently? Consistent with an evolutionary threat management perspective, we suggest that the answer to this question depends upon what types of threats immigrant groups are perceived as posing. In the present study, we compared attitudes toward male and female immigrants from either a violent ecology (e.g., Syria) or a pathogen-rich ecology (e.g., Liberia). We hypothesized that people would have more negative attitudes toward male than female immigrants from a violent ecology, but that attitudes would be similar toward male and female immigrants from a pathogen-rich ecology. Internal meta-analyses of three studies (total N = 1,488) were in line with our hypothesis. They showed that attitudes toward male immigrants from a violent ecology were more negative than attitudes toward female immigrants from the same ecology. In contrast, attitudes toward male and female immigrants were similar when those immigrants came from a pathogen-rich ecology. Our findings are consistent with an evolutionary threat management perspective on outgroup prejudice and are aligned with the male warrior hypothesis: Attitudes toward male versus female outgroup members vary with the potential threats these outgroups pose.
| S-EPMC7780271 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSeveral event related potential (ERP) studies have investigated the time course of different aspects of evaluative processing in social bias research. Various reports suggest that the late positive potential (LPP) is modulated by basic evaluative processes, and some reports suggest that in-/outgroup relative position affects ERP responses. In order to study possible LPP blending between facial race processing and semantic valence (positive or negative words), we recorded ERPs while indigenous and non-indigenous participants who were matched by age and gender performed an implicit association test (IAT). The task involved categorizing faces (ingroup and outgroup) and words (positive and negative). Since our paradigm implies an evaluative task with positive and negative valence association, a frontal distribution of LPPs similar to that found in previous reports was expected. At the same time, we predicted that LPP valence lateralization would be modulated not only by positive/negative associations but also by particular combinations of valence, face stimuli and participant relative position.ResultsResults showed that, during an IAT, indigenous participants with greater behavioral ingroup bias displayed a frontal LPP that was modulated in terms of complex contextual associations involving ethnic group and valence. The LPP was lateralized to the right for negative valence stimuli and to the left for positive valence stimuli. This valence lateralization was influenced by the combination of valence and membership type relevant to compatibility with prejudice toward a minority. Behavioral data from the IAT and an explicit attitudes questionnaire were used to clarify this finding and showed that ingroup bias plays an important role. Both ingroup favoritism and indigenous/non-indigenous differences were consistently present in the data.ConclusionOur results suggest that frontal LPP is elicited by contextual blending of evaluative judgments of in-/outgroup information and positive vs. negative valence association and confirm recent research relating in-/outgroup ERP modulation and frontal LPP. LPP modulation may cohere with implicit measures of attitudes. The convergence of measures that were observed supports the idea that racial and valence evaluations are strongly influenced by context. This result adds to a growing set of evidence concerning contextual sensitivity of different measures of prejudice.
| S-EPMC2711957 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We investigated the effect of structural interdependencies between groups (especially inequality), and interdependencies between individuals on ingroup favoritism in minimal group situations. Previous research has attempted to determine whether ingroup favoritism is produced by categorization or intragroup interdependencies (reciprocation expectations), but recent literature suggests that it is not possible to tease these influences apart. We report two studies that investigate how ingroup favoritism evolves over time in social interaction. The levels of ingroup favoritism were affected by categorization and inequality, and the level of ingroup favoritism changed over time, increasing or decreasing depending on the nature of the initial intergroup structure. We conclude by providing two explanations for this change: emergent norms, and changes to the intergroup situation produced by interaction. Our experiments confirm the value of studying the evolution of minimal group behavior, especially for explaining why low status groups act to preserve intergroup inequalities.
| S-EPMC5113042 | biostudies-literature