Intergroup Bias Research Articles

Exploring affective Polarisation of the (Digital) Public Sphere in Slovenia: The Case of Marshal Twito

The last decade saw the issue of polarisation garnering increased scholarly attention. While political polarisation has been almost unequivocally studied as synonymous with ideological polarisation, scholars have recently addressed polarisation along partisan lines manifesting through strong in-group favouritism and out-group unfavouritism, labelled as affective polarisation. This paper investigates patterns of affective polarisation in the Slovenian (digital) public sphere, through analysis of discourse of former Slovenian PM Janez Janša on Twitter. The affective-discursive analysis of Janša’s Twitter resulted in the identification and exploration of four affective-discursive practices: Dangerous Outsider, Pride and Patriotism, Immoral and Incompetent Women and Defection. We find that through interplay of these practices and by employing strategies of discursive closure, Janša successfully fuels polarisation among partisans by solidifying divisions along the in-group-out-group axis. The paper contributes to affective polarisation literature by demonstrating how political actors condition competitive environments around different social identities thereby minimising opportunities for meaningful deliberation and debate beyond the differences.

Unveiling Unexpected Selfless Collectivism: Exploring Variances in Moral Beliefs Across Cultural Values.

The impact of moral beliefs on individuals' moral judgments, particularly within the framework of contrasting cultural values such as collectivism and individualism, continues to be a subject of interest. This research delves into whether individuals with distinct values display differences in moral beliefs, with a specific focus on selflessness. Through experiment 1 and 2, we scrutinize the moral judgments of individuals with diverse values concerning pro-social behaviors driven by selflessness and in-group favoritism. Experiment 3 investigates the underlying mechanisms by examining reward expectations. The findings from experiments 1 and 2 indicate that collectivists exhibit significantly higher moral judgment levels for selfless pro-social behaviors compared to individualists, highlighting a disparity in moral beliefs between the two value systems. Experimental 2 also found that collectivists' moral judgments rose and fell as rescuers' selflessness increased or decreased. However, individualist moral judgment did not change significantly with behavioral selflessness. The results reveal that collectivists hold higher reward expectations for selfless behavior, which contributes to their heightened moral judgment of selfless behavior. While it may be assumed that collectivists' moral beliefs would be dominated by in-group preferences, aligning with the conceptual in-group preference of collectivism, this study unexpectedly found evidence of collectivists' pursuit of selflessness in their moral beliefs. These findings offer initial evidence of distinct patterns of moral beliefs associated with collectivism and individualism, shedding light on potential reasons that lead collectivists to possess stronger moral beliefs about selflessness.

The nasty neighbor effect in humans.

Like other group-living species, humans often cooperate more with an in-group member than with out-group members and strangers. Greater in-group favoritism should imply that people also compete less with in-group members than with out-group members and strangers. However, in situations where people could invest to take other's resources and invest to protect against exploitation, we observed the opposite. Akin to what in other species is known as the "nasty neighbor effect," people invested more when facing an in-group rather than out-group member or stranger across 51 nations, in different communities in Kenya, and in representative samples from the United Kingdom. This "nasty neighbor" behavior is independent of in-group favoritism in trust and emerges when people perceive within-group resource scarcity. We discuss how to reconcile that humans exhibit nastiness and favoritism toward in-group members with existing theory on in-group favoritism.

Facilitating and Hindering Accurate Perceptions of Argument Strength: The Effects of Intergroup Bias and Intellectual Humility

Intellectual humility (IH), the awareness that one’s beliefs could be wrong, is lacking in U.S. political discourse. Guided by the elaboration likelihood model, we conducted an experiment (N = 308) examining people’s ability to differentiate objectively strong (versus weak) political arguments. We explore whether IH influences the effects of in-/outgroup sources on perceived argument strength. Results revealed people high in IH were better able to differentiate strong from weak arguments (nonsignificant with covariates in the model (p = .07), but significant without covariates). Additionally, participants evaluated ingroup messages as stronger than outgroup messages, an effect not moderated by IH.

Exemplary Self-Discipline, Leniency towards Others: Competitive Contexts Amplify the "Black Sheep Effect" in Restoring Ingroup Trust.

Intergroup interaction, a pivotal aspect of social interaction, encompasses both cooperation and competition. Group identity significantly impacts individual behaviors and decision-making processes. This influence manifests in two contrasting ways when addressing rule-breaking by interaction partners: in-group favoritism, where individuals are more lenient towards infractions committed by in-group members, and the black sheep effect, where in-group members are penalized for their rule-breaking. Although trust is crucial in intergroup interactions, the precise impact of group identity on trust restoration and the potential moderating role of intergroup interaction types remain to be elucidated. This study presents two experiments designed to explore these dynamics. In Study 1, the manipulation of group identity through a point estimation task was utilized to evaluate its impact on intergroup trust restoration via a series of repeated trust games. Study 2 aimed to explore the moderating role of intergroup interaction on intergroup trust restoration by contrasting cooperation and competition situations. The results uncovered a "black sheep effect", where participants demonstrated a greater propensity for trust restoration with out-group members than with in-group members. This effect, however, was only evident in competitive contexts. Conversely, in cooperative contexts, the individual's trust in the in-group and out-group members is effectively repaired. These findings contribute to a deeper comprehension of trust dynamics in intergroup interactions, promoting trust establishment and repair between diverse groups, thereby boosting team collaboration efficiency and mitigating conflicts.

The strategic use of social identity

Individuals often have the power to manipulate which of their multiple dimensions of social identity are salient when entering economic interactions. This paper represents the first empirical exploration of this phenomenon. Experimental results show identity dimension choice is of substantial importance, providing potential earnings gains up to around 56%. Actual gains are smaller: people choose identity dimensions strategically and benefit from broadly accurate beliefs about counterparts’ discriminatory tendencies, but are also hampered by some misperceptions (e.g. overestimating levels of in-group favouritism). Furthermore, many individuals sacrifice expected payoffs to make their preferred dimensions salient, suggesting intrinsic utility derives from social identity.

Effect of prophylactic abdominal drainage on postoperative pain in laparoscopic hemicolectomy for colon cancer: a single-center observational study in Korea.

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of prophylactic abdominal drainage (AD) in laparoscopic hemicolectomy, focusing on assessing postoperative pain outcomes. Patients were categorized into two groups: those with and without AD (AD group vs. no-AD group). A numerical rating scale (NRS) was used to assess postoperative pain on each postoperative day (POD). Further, the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method was used to reduce intergroup bias. In total, 204 patients who underwent laparoscopic hemicolectomies by a single surgeon between June 2013 and September 2022 at a single institution were retrospectively reviewed. After adjusting for IPTW, NRS scores on POD 2 were significantly lower in the no-AD group (3.2 ± 0.8 vs. 3.4 ± 0.8, p = 0.043). Further examination of postoperative outcomes showed no statistically significant differences in complications between the AD (17.3%) and no-AD (12.4%) groups (p = 0.170). The postoperative length of hospital stay was 7.3 ± 2.8 days in the AD group and 6.9 ± 3.0 days in the no-AD group, with no significant difference (p = 0.298). Time to first flatus was 3.0 ± 0.9 days in the AD group and 2.7 ± 0.9 days in the no-AD group, with no significant difference (p = 0.078). Regarding readmission within 1 month, there were four cases each in the AD (2.3%) and no-AD (1.7%) groups, with no significant difference (p = 0.733). Laparoscopic hemicolectomy without AD resulted in no significant differences in postoperative clinical outcomes, except for postoperative pain. This finding suggests that prophylactic AD may exacerbate postoperative pain.

National Identity and Democracy Ratings

Global performance indicators, such as democracy ratings, are influential tools of global governance and can have a direct bearing on foreign policy, aid, and investment. Many of these indicators rely on expert assessments. Although expert assessments are generally understood to be objective, this article suggests raters’ identities may shape their assessments. It specifically examines how national identity shapes democracy ratings. Two data sources—an original survey of experts on Uganda and the Varieties of Democracy Institute—reveal significant differences in the ratings provided by national and non-national experts. In most cases, ratings by nationals are more positive. This article explores three potential reasons for the difference, finding some support for each: national differences in information access and consumption, national differences in conceptions of democracy, and in-group–out-group bias. The findings have implications for our understanding of global performance indicators, which are overwhelmingly a product of Global North organizations.

Tale of two emergent games: Opinion dynamics in dynamical directed networks.

Unidirectional social interactions are ubiquitous in real social networks whereas undirected interactions are intensively studied. We establish a voter model in a dynamical directed network. We analytically obtain the degree distribution of the evolving network at any given time. Furthermore, we find that the average degree is captured by an emergent game. However, we find that the fate of opinions is captured by another emergent game. Beyond expectation, the two emergent games are typically different due to the unidirectionality of the evolving networks. The Nash equilibrium analysis of the two games facilitates us to give the criterion under which the minority opinion with few disciples initially takes over the population eventually for in-group bias. Our work fosters the understanding of opinion dynamics ranging from methodology to research content.

Applying Behavioral Economics to Social Capital to Increase International Enrollment in U.S. Community Colleges

ABSTRACT At a time when international student enrollment has been declining at community colleges for more reasons than just the pandemic, this paper attempts to address a gap in the literature to assist community colleges with their enrollment by helping them recruit international students. While there are many suggestions for improving international enrollment numbers, they are often financially costly. Given the budgets of community colleges and how international students choose their post-secondary institutions, community colleges are best able to raise international enrollment by concentrating on improving the campus experience for their current international students. To do so, this paper is the first to apply insights from behavioral economics to see how they might help increase the social capital of international students to boost international enrollment. Outside the classroom, international students may be helped by the college employing behavioral biases such as the availability bias and status quo bias and the heuristic known as the foot-in-the-door to raise their social capital with domestic students and using the information overload and choice overload to increase their social capital with academic counselors. Inside the classroom, faculty members can employ behavioral biases like the appeal to authority and the in-group bias to help international students increase their social capital with domestic students.

Quality of Life as a Factor in Maintaining the National-State Identity Steadiness

The paper discusses the quality of life capacity as a factor in maintaining the stability of national-state identity in modern Russia. The authors reveal the topic based on the analysis of data from quantitative sociological research for the period 2013–2021 (surveys by the All-Russian Center for the Study of Public Opinion and the Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences). The theoretical basis of the study is the concept of social identity by G. Tajfel and D. Turner. The authors conclude that, by the mid-2010s, a consensus formed among most adult citizens in a Russian society that the quality of life was the key or one of the primary criteria for the national greatness of the country. The model of irrational prestige consumption has become widespread, the extrapolation of which was facilitated by increased access to relevant media content through increased Internet penetration and improved methods of simulation getting status goods and services. The described situation creates risks of destroying the empirical basis for supporting in-group favoritism of Russians and out-group discrimination of communities speaking on behalf of the principal opponents of the Russian Federation in the external domain. Because of this, the quality of life in the medium term gains the role of one of the key factors providing the sustainability of the national-state identity of Russians.

Chinese International Students Ingroup Bias and Collective Self-esteem

This study explores the influence of studying abroad on ingroup bias and collective self-esteem among Chinese international students in the US. Given the cultural differences between the two countries, Chinese students may face challenges and even discrimination when socializing with the host nationals. From the social identity perspective, such negative experiences can intensify feelings of being an outsider, leading to stronger adherence to their familiar group. In addition, to strengthen their social identity they may emphasize the positive attributes of the ingroup they belong to, which also enhances collective self-esteem. The present study hypothesizes that Chinese international students will exhibit higher ingroup bias and collective self-esteem related to their nationality than domestic Chinese students. Using a minimal group paradigm, the research aims to determine if overseas experiences heighten ingroup bias and collective self-esteem even without real-context comparisons. The findings provide insights into the complexities of cross-cultural interactions and the psychological impacts of studying abroad.

Preregistered Replication and Extension of "Moral Hypocrisy: Social Groups and the Flexibility of Virtue".

The tendency for people to consider themselves morally good while behaving selfishly is known as moral hypocrisy. Influential work by Valdesolo and DeSteno (2007) found evidence for intergroup moral hypocrisy such that people were more forgiving of transgressions when they were committed by an in-group member than an out-group member. We conducted two experiments to examine moral hypocrisy and group membership in an online paradigm with Prolific workers from the United States: a direct replication of the original work with minimal groups (N = 610; nationally representative) and a conceptual replication with political groups (N = 606; 50% Democrats and 50% Republicans). Although the results did not replicate the original findings, we observed evidence of in-group favoritism in minimal groups and out-group derogation in political groups. The current research finds mixed evidence of intergroup moral hypocrisy and has implications for understanding the contextual dependencies of intergroup bias and partisanship.

Cross-Cultural Insights from Two Global Mental Health Studies: Self-Enhancement and Ingroup Biases

AbstractThis commentary highlights two cross-cultural issues identified from our global mental health (GMH) research, RECOLLECT (Recovery Colleges Characterisation and Testing) 2: self-enhancement and ingroup biases. Self-enhancement is a tendency to maintain and express unrealistically positive self-views. Ingroup biases are differences in one’s evaluation of others belonging to the same social group. These biases are discussed in the context of GMH research using self-report measures across cultures. GMH, a field evolving since its Lancet series introduction in 2007, aims to advance mental health equity and human rights. Despite a 16.5-fold increase in annual GMH studies from 2007 to 2016, cross-cultural understanding remains underdeveloped. We discuss the impact of individualism versus collectivism on self-enhancement and ingroup biases. GMH research using concepts, outcomes, and methods aligned with individualism may give advantages to people and services oriented to individualism. GMH research needs to address these biases arising from cross-cultural differences to achieve its aim.

If not me then we: Goal tradeoffs in decision-making for the self, ingroup, and outgroup

Navigating the social world requires individuals to balance multiple goals, including the drives to improve one's own outcomes, aid ingroup members, and help or hurt outgroup members. While self-interest and intergroup bias are both well-established motivational phenomena, less is known about how these goals may interact. Here we examine the nature of goal tradeoffs in intergroup decision-making using a novel task in which participants simultaneously make monetary decisions for themselves, an arbitrary ingroup, and the corresponding outgroup. Across four behavioural studies and one eye-tracking study (total N = 704), we find that goals in intergroup contexts are pursued sequentially rather than concurrently, with non-linear upweighting of group-related goals when self-related goals cannot be pursued. Further, we find evidence for stronger self-ingroup than self-outgroup tradeoffs, which manifest in both altered attention to information and altered use of the attended information in decision-making. The results shed light on the cognitive structuring of interrelated goals in intergroup decision-making, furthering our understanding of when and how both intergroup biases and prosocial behaviour may emerge.

On the Defensive: Identity, Language, and Partisan Reactions to Political Scandal.

We investigated how individuals judge politicians embroiled in scandal. Drawing on social identity and realistic group conflict theory, we predicted that beyond an overall ingroup bias, partisans would be particularly forgiving of in-party politicians who denied or justified their misconduct rather than apologize for it. By insisting that they did nothing wrong, these politicians defend the public image of their party and signal their commitment to partisan goals. We find qualified support for this prediction across three experiments. Participants did not respond negatively to in-party politicians who apologized but did react more positively to those who denied or justified wrongdoing (relative to silence). These accounts worked only for in-party politicians and were more effective for those whose misconduct furthered their party's agenda or whose seat was high-status or pivotal for party goals. In intergroup contexts like politics, people may accept explanations for misconduct that they would otherwise find offensive.

Do in-group biases lead to overconfidence in performance? Experimental evidence

Is the phenomenon of people overestimating their skill relative to their peers (overplacement) exacerbated by group affiliation? Social identity theory predicts people evaluate in-group members more positively than out-group members, and we hypothesized that this differential treatment may result in greater overplacement when interacting with an out-group member. We tested this hypothesis with 301 US voters affiliated with either the Republican or Democratic party in the run-up to the 2020 Presidential election, a time when political identities were salient and highly polarized. We found there is a higher tendency for overplacement when faced with an out-group opponent than with an in-group opponent. Decomposition analysis suggests this difference is due to underestimating the opponent, as opposed to overestimating one’s own performance to a higher degree. Moreover, any tendency to incur in overplacement is mitigated when faced with an opponent with the same political identity relative to one with a neutral one. Group affiliation biases initial priors, but not how they are updated.

Generalized trust and attitudes toward immigrants in East Asia: A cross-national comparative study

Generalized trust has been widely discussed as a non-economic determinant influencing public attitudes toward immigrants among natives in Europe. However, associations between generalized trust and public opinions on immigrants remain underexplored in East Asia. This study investigates the association between generalized trust among natives and their attitudes toward immigrants, considering the interaction between generalized trust and country. Utilizing data from the 7th wave of the World Values Survey dataset for three East Asian countries—South Korea, China, and Japan—we fitted two mixed multilevel logistic regression models for two dependent variables in two scenarios: opposition to immigrants as neighbors, and prioritizing nationals in economic adversity. Results reveal that generalized trust was negatively related to natives' reluctance to accept immigrants as neighbors. However, the association was only marginally significant when examining support for in-group favoritism in economic adversity. The impact of generalized trust on these attitudes also exhibited variations by country. Notably, we found a negative association between generalized trust and opposing immigrants as neighbors in China and Japan, while this may not be the case for Korea.

The relationship between attachment representations and minimal intergroup bias in preschool-aged children.

Attachment theory proposes that young children's experiences with their caregivers has a tremendous influence on how children navigate their social relationships. By the end of early childhood, intergroup contexts play an important role in their social life and children build strong ties to their ingroups. Although both domains relate to the same psychological processes-children's affective ties to others-surprisingly very little research has addressed how children's attachment relates to their intergroup attitudes and behavior. In this study, we investigate the link. For that purpose, 5-year-old children (n=100) first underwent the German Attachment Story Completion Task (GEV-B). Then we allocated children into minimal groups based on T-Shirt color and assessed their intergroup attitudes and intergroup behavior. Results showed that while most children showed a strong and robust ingroup bias in their attitudes and behavior, children with an insecure-ambivalent attachment representation treated in- and outgroup similarly. Overall, this study provides novel perspectives on the relationship between children's attachment representation and their interactions in the social world. RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS: This study provides novel insights into the relationship between children's attachment security and the development of intergroup bias in a minimal group context Children with secure, insecure-avoidant and disorganized attachment representation showed a strong intergroup bias in explicit attitudes and behavior Children with insecure-ambivalent attachment representation displayed no intergroup bias Insecure-ambivalent attachment representations might be detrimental to the formation of ingroup attachment.

The Formation of Negative Attitudes Toward Novel Groups

People perceive out-groups, minorities, and novel groups more negatively than in-groups, majorities, and familiar groups. Previous research has argued that such intergroup biases may be caused by the order in which people typically encounter social groups. Groups that are relatively novel to perceivers (e.g., out-groups, minorities) are primarily associated with distinct attributes that differentiate them from familiar groups. Because distinct attributes are typically negative, attitudes toward novel groups are negatively biased. Five experiments (N = 2,615 adults) confirmed the generalizability of the novel groups’ disadvantage to different aspects of attitude formation (i.e., evaluations, memory, stereotyping), to cases with more than two groups, and to cases in which groups were majority/minority or in-groups/out-groups. Our findings revealed a remarkably robust influence of learning order in the formation of group attitudes, and they imply that people often perceive novel groups more negatively than they actually are.