Preference For In-group Members Research Articles

Children and Adolescents' Ingroup Biases and Developmental Differences in Evaluations of Peers Who Misinform.

Previous developmental research shows that young children display a preference for ingroup members when it comes to who they accept information from – even when that information is false. However, it is not clear how this ingroup bias develops into adolescence, and how it affects responses about peers who misinform in intergroup contexts, which is important to explore with growing numbers of young people on online platforms. Given that the developmental span from childhood to adolescence is when social groups and group norms are particularly important, the present study took a Social Reasoning Developmental Approach. This study explored whether children and adolescents respond differently to a misinformer spreading false claims about a peer breaking COVID-19 rules, depending on (a) the group membership of the misinformer and their target and (b) whether the ingroup had a “critical” norm that values questioning information before believing it. 354 United Kingdom-based children (8–11 years old) and adolescents (12–16 years old) read about an intergroup scenario in which a peer spreads misinformation on WhatsApp about a competitor. Participants first made moral evaluations, which asked them to judge and decide whether or not to include the misinformer, with follow-up “Why?” questions to capture their reasoning. This was followed by asking them to attribute intentions to the misinformer. Results showed that ingroup preferences emerged both when participants morally evaluated the misinformer, and when they justified those responses. Participants were more likely to evaluate an ingroup compared to an outgroup misinformer positively, and more likely to accuse an outgroup misinformer of dishonesty. Adolescents attributed more positive intentions to the misinformer compared with children, with children more likely to believe an outgroup misinformer was deliberately misinforming. The critical norm condition resulted in children making more positive intentionality attributions toward an ingroup misinformer, but not an outgroup misinformer. This study’s findings highlight the importance of shared group identity with a misinformer when morally evaluating and reasoning about their actions, and the key role age plays in intentionality attributions surrounding a misinformer when their intentions are ambiguous.

Intermediation and discrimination in an investment game: An experimental study

Using a three-players’ variant of the investment game with different group identity, we investigate how participants who take decisions on behalf of other behave differently than the party directly involved in a discriminatory context. We provide evidence that pure intermediaries (individuals who make decision on behalf of “owners” and who do not risk their own resources) are more prone to discrimination than “owners” (players who make decisions for themselves). The cause of the discrimination we observe is not hostility toward out-group members but is mainly triggered by preferences for in-group members. It seems that because of their position, intermediaries can express their preferences for in-group members more easily than the owners, although they feel responsible for the resources with which they play. Moreover, our data suggest that owners are more prone to statistical considerations than intermediaries. Finally, we observe a gender effect among intermediaries: women invest significantly less than men.

Those outsiders: How downstream externalities affect public good provision

Some policy problems pit one group׳s interests against another׳s. One group may determine provision of a project (such as a dam) that benefits group members but hurts others. We introduce a model of such projects. In-group members may contribute to a common fund that benefits them as a public good. Benefits from the project may vary within the group. Provision has negative downstream externalities: contributions hurt agents outside the in-group (“Outsiders”), rendering them anti-social. Many models of social preferences predict that such externalities should reduce provision, although conditional cooperation or a preference for in-group members may counteract this. We test this model with a lab experiment using Outsiders with whom the in-group members have more and less contact. With homogeneous in-group benefits, the presence of negative downstream externalities reduces contributions by half when they have closer contact with Outsiders but not at all when they have had no contact. We introduce a rotating high-return position that allows subjects to trade favors. In this setting, contributions of non-privileged members diminish slightly when faced with the negative externality given closer contact with Outsiders, and not at all with less contact. Reciprocal giving occurs whether or not Outsiders are present.

Outwit, outplay, outcast? Sex discrimination in voting behaviour in the reality television show Survivor

The current study uses data from the reality television show Survivor to determine whether contestants discriminate against other contestants on the basis of sex. In Survivor, contestants initially compete in teams, and are strategically incentivised to eliminate weaker contestants to boost the performance of their team. Later in the season, teams are merged and the contestants compete individually. Stronger players then become a threat, and so strategic incentives encourage contestants to eliminate stronger players. Voting patterns allowed inferences to be made about taste-based and information-based theories of discrimination. Taste-based discrimination predicted that targeted groups would receive high mean votes both before teams are merged and post-merge. Likewise, a preference for in-group members would result in voters voting for members of the opposite sex both pre- and post-merge. Neither sex showed a tendency to vote consistently for contestants of the opposite sex. Information-based discrimination predicted high mean votes pre-merge and low mean-votes post-merge, and both sexes showed voting behaviour consistent with information-based discrimination against female contestants.

The development of stereotyping and exclusion.

This article reviews the developmental science literature on stereotyping and exclusion, with a focus on gender, race, and ethnicity. Stereotyping of others, which is defined as the attribution of traits to individuals based on group membership, is often used to justify exclusion of others in social group contexts. This review includes a focus on the links between these two constructs. Research on stereotyping and exclusion has drawn on several theoretical traditions, including social domain theory, social identity developmental theory, and subjective group dynamics theory, which are also discussed in the context of the research findings. Key findings on stereotyping include categorization and classification in relationship with decreased in-group bias, and the role of stereotypes in encoding information. Findings on exclusion include the use of available information to make judgments, preferences for in-group members who are normative and out-group members who are deviant, the increased importance, with age, of group functioning in exclusion decisions, and decreased negative evaluation of in-group members who partake in exclusionary behaviors. Though little research has explicitly studied the links between stereotyping and exclusion from groups, this review describes the current literature in both areas and suggests future directions for research. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs website.

The loyal member effect: On the preference for ingroup members who engage in exclusive relations with the ingroup.

The goal of this article was to investigate an indirect form of intergroup differentiation in children in the context of racial attitudes: the preference for ingroup members who interact positively with other ingroup members rather than with outgroup members. Study 1 confirmed this general hypothesis with preschool and 1st-grade children, demonstrating that respondents preferred the ingroup member who played only with other ingroup members, evaluated this child more positively, and felt more similar to him or her. Studies 2 and 3 tested the boundary conditions of the phenomenon. Study 4 analyzed developmental changes demonstrating that the effect is no longer observed among 9- to 11-year-old children. Overall, these studies suggest that engaging in positive interactions with the outgroup might have its costs in terms of a relative devaluation and rejection by one's peers. Results are discussed by stressing the importance of intragroup processes for the regulation of intergroup relations among very young children.