Outgroup Influence Research Articles

Social conformity updates the neural representation of facial attractiveness

People readily change their behavior to comply with others. However, to which extent they will internalize the social influence remains elusive. In this preregistered electroencephalogram (EEG) study, we investigated how learning from one’s in-group or out-group members about facial attractiveness would change explicit attractiveness ratings and spontaneous neural representations of facial attractiveness. Specifically, we quantified the neural representational similarities of learned faces with prototypical attractive faces during a face perception task without overt social influence and intentional evaluation. We found that participants changed their explicit attractiveness ratings to both in-group and out-group influences. Moreover, social conformity updated spontaneous neural representation of facial attractiveness, an effect particularly evident when participants learned from their in-group members and among those who perceived tighter social norms. These findings offer insights into how group affiliations and individual differences in perceived social norms modulate the internalization of social influence.

Social influence and social identity: A diffusion model analysis.

Building on the seminal studies of Solomon Asch and Muzafer Sherif, recent research has advanced our understanding of the mechanisms underlying social influence by applying a diffusion model analysis. Here, we combined the social identity approach to social influence with a diffusion model analysis to unravel the mechanisms underlying social influence. In particular, we aimed to disentangle whether the difference between in-group and out-group influence on perceptual decision-making is driven by a judgmental bias (i.e., changes in decision criteria) or a perceptual bias (i.e., changes in the uptake of sensory information). Preregistered analyses indicated that in-groups exerted stronger social influence than out-groups because in-groups induced a stronger perceptual bias than out-groups. This finding is in line with the single process assumption of the social identity approach because it implicates that the single process driving social influence (i.e., self-categorisation) translates into a change in a single subprocess of decision-making (i.e., biased information uptake). In conclusion, our results highlight that our theoretical understanding of social influence can be expanded by integrating the social identity approach with a diffusion model analysis.

Contexts and conditions of outgroup influence

The current study examined how the composition of intergroup contexts affects intergroup communication. We propose that when multiple outgroups exist, an extreme faction can make more moderate factions appear reasonable, creating pathways for influence. We also considered the role that an influence target’s fit with their ingroup (self-prototypicality) plays in responses to outgroup influence attempts. Specifically, we propose, and the current study showed, that both the composition of intergroup context and one’s relationship with their own group can create a pathway toward convergence of opinions and willingness to accept an outgroup’s opinion position. Two experiments (American partisans, N = 249), suggest that self-prototypicality in one’s political party positively predicts agreement with an opposing party’s message when the message appears in the presence of a more extreme outgroup than the moderate outgroup alone. This study stresses the importance of considering intragroup and intergroup comparative processes for intergroup communication research.

Victimhood beliefs are linked to willingness to engage in intergroup contact with the former adversary through empathy and trust

After intergroup conflicts end, beliefs about past suffering of the ingroup compared to an outgroup influence relations between former adversaries. In Kosovo and Bosnia and Herzegovina, we simultaneously examined the effects of inclusive victimhood (i.e., a belief that both the ingroup and a former adversary suffered similarly) and competitive victimhood (i.e., a belief that the ingroup suffered more than a former adversary) on willingness to engage in contact with a former adversary, a precursor of positive changes in postconflict societies. In one correlational ( NAlbanians = 159; NCroat s = 227) and two experimental studies ( NAlbanians = 161; NCroats = 341, preregistered), inclusive victimhood was linked to higher willingness to engage in contact with former adversaries through higher empathy (Studies 1 to 3) and trust (Studies 1 and 2). In contrast, competitive victimhood was associated with lower willingness to engage in contact through lower empathy (Study 1) and trust (Studies 1 and 3). We discuss the practical implications of our findings for interventions in postconflict societies.

Looking Out For (White) Australia

Abstract. We conceptualized and developed a measure of right-wing protective popular nationalism (RWPPN) – a specific form of popular nationalism where people seek to protect the national culture from outgroup influences. RWPPN is derived from a sociological analysis of right-wing popular nationalism in Australia and is theoretically related to several key psychological constructs, including right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), social dominance orientation (SDO), and symbolic threat. We conducted two surveys using nationally representative samples of Australian citizens. In study 1 ( n = 657), participants completed measures of RWPPN and related constructs. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis resulted in a 10-item scale. Construct validity was tested and confirmed across divergent, convergent, predictive, and concurrent validation domains. Additional convergent validation with RWA and SDO was tested in study 2 ( n = 316). Together, RWPPN was found to relate to expressions of national identity, prejudice, perceived outgroup threat, opposition to multiculturalism, and aggressive tendencies toward ethnic minorities. These effects remained significant when controlling for nationalism (measured as a concern for national superiority) and blind patriotism. In study 2, the effect on aggressive tendencies held when controlling for RWA and SDO and RWPPN mediated the relationship between RWA and aggressive tendencies. Reflecting the conservative nature of Australian popular nationalism, RWPPN correlated with right-wing political alignment. The research was conducted in Australia, but given the rise in right-wing populism internationally, RWPPN may be a phenomenon in other countries. Therefore, this paper offers a new construct and scale to investigate it in Australia and internationally.

Commentary: Who Are Your Friends? The Influence of Identification and Family In-Group and Out-Group Friendships on Nonfamily Employee OCB and Deviance

We refine the findings of Vardaman, Allen, and Rogers that indicate the structural position of nonfamily employees in friendship networks can enhance organizational identification and reduce turnover in family firms. We extend their work by offering a more nuanced perspective that not all friendships are created equal. We propose that a family friend’s membership in the family in-group or out-group influences nonfamily employees’ organizational identification, and in turn, their behavior (i.e., organizational citizenship behavior and deviance). Our theorizing expands the nascent literature on nonfamily employees, offering a theoretical rationale for their complex and often poorly understood behavior.

Disgust Associated With Culture Mixing

Humans possess evolved mechanisms to detect and reject contamination by potentially harmful foreign substances. These mechanisms may also function in the rejection of violations in the social order. Here, we propose that the disgust evaluation system may also be sensitive to culture mixing, especially when elements of own and foreign cultures occupy the same space at the same time (culture fusion). Across four studies, we observe support for this prediction. Paralleling disgust ratings for contaminants mixing with pure objects associated with the self (Study 1A), representations of blending and fusion between elements of own and foreign cultures were rated as more disgusting than simultaneous presentation of the same cultural elements without fusion (Studies 1B and 2). Disgust toward culture fusion was observed over and above incongruity associated with mixing two in-group cultural representations (Study 4). Moreover, selective disgust toward in-group–out-group culture fusion was especially pronounced among those endorsing higher levels of patriotism (Studies 1B, 2, and 4), but not when culture fusion involved two foreign representations (Study 3). These findings support the notion that the architecture for pathogenic- and food-based disgust may have been extended to reject external threats to the fidelity of in-group identity markers by out-group influences.

In-Group and Out-Group Influences on the Consumption Behavior of Minority Groups: The Case of Gay Men

This article examines how and why members of a stigmatized minority group respond to in-group and out-group influences in their consumption decisions. Specifically, the authors demonstrate through a field survey that gay men are more [less] likely, compared with their straight counterparts, to conform to influences from in-group [out-group] members. Moreover, the authors show that these patterns are driven by differences across these two groups in both their horizontal and vertical collectivism values. In doing so, this article provides evidence of the influence of coping with continual threats to identity (as are faced by stigmatized minorities) on gay men's cultural values and explores these driving role of these values in gay men's susceptibility to influences from in- and out-groups that go beyond those based on majority–minority status.

Mai dongxi: Social influence, materialism and China's one-child policy

This paper investigates the moderating role of the China's one-child policy on the relationship between susceptibility to social influence from parents and peers and the levels of materialism of consumers. By comparing Chinese consumers who were born after the implementation of the one-child policy with their Indian and Thai counterparts, our study finds that the previously documented positive relationship between peer influence and materialism as well as the negative relationship between parental influence and materialism are greater for consumers from China than those from India and Thailand. We theorize that these differences are due to the ability and motivation of only-children to internalize the materialistic values from their parents and peers. Further, we demonstrate that these differences in social influence are restricted to in-group influences (i.e., parents and peers) and do not manifest in the case of out-group influences (e.g., salespeople).

Intergroup Conflict in Russia

The group position model ( Blumer 1958 ; Bobo and Tuan 2006 ) assumes that attempting to secure a privileged position for the ingroup is a main determinant of perceived intergroup conflict. This assumption is tested with survey data collected in 1999 and 2000 among eight titular groups in autonomous republics of the Russian Federation. The survey included an experiment that was aimed at disentangling the effects of perceived threat and the fear of outgroup encroachment (growing outgroup influence). The findings indicate that more conflict was perceived when the ingroup was larger (corresponding to stronger entitlement claims to privilege), especially among those who felt more threatened. This association was further strengthened among those whose fear of outgroup encroachment was made salient. This study shows the relevance of the group position model in understanding perceived intergroup conflict among national minority groups with a local privileged status.

The Other Side of We: When Outgroup Members Express Common Identity

Previous research on the common ingroup identity model has focused on how one's representations of members of the ingroup and outgroup influence intergroup attitudes. Two studies reported here investigated how learning how others, ingroup or outgroup members, conceive of the groups within a superordinate category affects intergroup bias and willingness to engage in intergroup contact. Across both studies, high school students who learned that other ingroup members categorized students at both schools within the common identity of "students" showed less intergroup bias in evaluations and greater willingness for contact. However, consistent with the hypothesized effects of identity threat, when participants read that outgroup members saw the groups within the superordinate category, they exhibited a relatively negative orientation, except when ingroup members also endorsed a superordinate identity (Study 1). This result occurred even when the relative status of the groups was manipulated (Study 2).

Context/Categorization Model of Social Influence: Minority and Majority Influence in the Formation of a Novel Response Norm

The designs of most investigations of minority/majority influence interpose extreme discrepancies between influence sources′ messages and targets′ attitudes or primitive perceptual judgments. Further, majority/minority status typically is defined by performance on the critical judgment task, rather than being based on established features of the interacting actors under study. In the present investigation, susceptibility to influence is investigated in a norm formation (vs attitude change) context, and majority/minority status of both sources and targets is established independent of the critical task. The task itself is described to participants as involving either subjective or objective judgments, which presumably renders targets differentially sensitive to in-group or out-group influence sources. As predicted, but contrary to the usual findings, minority sources had greater informational influence on both public and private judgments. Furthermore, source and subject status interacted with subjective/objective nature of judgments: in the subjective judgment condition, targets of minority status were more influenced by in-group sources, while on objective judgments, participants of majority status were more influenced by out-group sources. These effects were anticipated by the Context/Categorization model, which describes the interactive effect of (objective/subjective) task type and (majority/minority) influence source and target status on susceptibility to informational social influence. Theoretical implications of the model were discussed, as were the ramifications of the methodological variations that distinguish the present work from much prior research on minority and majority social influence.

The acquisition of linguistic politeness and Brown and Levinson’s theory

Th A. hypothesizes that if there exists any universals of linguistic politeness, then they should manifest themselves to the greatest degree at early ages, that is, when outgroup influences have the least impact on the child's language and primary socialization.

Knowing what to think by knowing who you are: Self‐categorization and the nature of norm formation, conformity and group polarization*

We contrast two theoretical approaches to social influence, one stressing interpersonal dependence, conceptualized as normative and informational influence (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955), and the other stressing group membership, conceptualized as self-categorization and referent informational influence (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher & Wetherell, 1987). We argue that both social comparisons to reduce uncertainty and the existence of normative pressure to comply depend on perceiving the source of influence as belonging to one's own category. This study tested these two approaches using three influence paradigms. First we demonstrate that, in Sherif's (1936) autokinetic effect paradigm, the impact of confederates on the formation of a norm decreases as their membership of a different category is made more salient to subjects. Second, in the Asch (1956) conformity paradigm, surveillance effectively exerts normative pressure if done by an in-group but not by an out-group. In-group influence decreases and out-group influence increases when subjects respond privately. Self-report data indicate that in-group confederates create more subjective uncertainty than out-group confederates and public responding seems to increase cohesiveness with in-group - but decrease it with out-group - sources of influence. In our third experiment we use the group polarization paradigm (e.g. Burnstein & Vinokur, 1973) to demonstrate that, when categorical differences between two subgroups within a discussion group are made salient, convergence of opinion between the subgroups is inhibited. Taken together the experiments show that self-categorization can be a crucial determining factor in social influence.

Intergroup fairness and bias in children

AbstractIn recent years in research on intergroup relationships, the assumption has increasingly been made that discrimination dominates decisions when individuals allocate resources between (members of) own and other group. Conversely, in empirical studies of interpersonal decision‐making, including an extensive literature on the development of children's allocation rules within dyadic relationships, it has been repeatedly observed that in dyadic relationships choices though responsive to various changes in the environment, are more strongly governed by fairness rules. The present research extends the interpersonal fairness paradigm to the intergroup case, and examines the effects of some of those variables, namely, children's age, input and attitudes toward other, that have been observed to influence choice behaviour within interpersonal relationships. The findings indicate that as children are socialized, fairness rules also play an increasing dominant role in intergroup allocation decisions, and that both relative input and the language of the outgroup influence such decisions. At the same time, there is some preliminary evidence to indicate that the relative strength of self‐interest may be somewhat stronger in intergroup than in interpersonal relationships. Finally, a number of the issues that must be confronted in comparing the two more important forms of human social choices, interpersonal and intergroup decision‐making, are considered.