			Home About us Contact

Ingroup Threat (ingroup + threat)

Distribution by Scientific Domains

Psychology	80%

Selected Abstracts

Examining dispositional and situational effects on outgroup attitudes,

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY, Issue 4 2009
Joke Meeus
Two research lines have dominated the quest for the antecedents of outgroup attitudes. Whereas the first has viewed outgroup attitudes as a result of individual differences, the second stressed the importance of the intergroup situation. In order to investigate the interplay of individual differences and situational characteristics, key predictors of the individual differences perspective (i.e. right-wing authoritarianism or RWA, and social dominance orientation or SDO) and the intergroup relations perspective (i.e. ingroup identification and ingroup threat) were simultaneously tested. Two studies revealed additive but no interaction effects of RWA and SDO, ingroup identification and threat. Additionally, Study 1 showed that threat effects remain limited to the outgroup that is portrayed as threatening and do not generalize to other outgroups. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source]

Group motives in threatening contexts: When a loyalty conflict paradoxically reduces the influence of an anti-discrimination ingroup norm

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, Issue 2 2009
Juan M. Falomir-Pichastor
The influence of pro- versus anti-discrimination ingroup norms on Swiss nationals' attitudes towards foreigners was investigated as a function of national identification and perceived material ingroup threat. As predicted, results revealed a significant interaction between identification and threat: High identifiers showed a more negative attitude than low identifiers mainly when perceived threat was high. In other words, high identifiers conformed to the pro-discrimination norm, but showed a counter-conformity effect for the anti-discrimination norm. Additional results revealed that high identifiers actually disagreed with the anti-discrimination norm when perceived threat was high, but that they were more attached to the ingroup. These findings suggest that when the ingroup norm is not an appropriate response to an ingroup threat (i.e. anti-discrimination norm), high identifiers find themselves in a loyalty conflict: they are unable to simultaneously conform to the group norm and protect the group. This conflict was resolved through a compensatory mechanism: High identifiers distanced themselves from the ingroup norm in order to protect the group (i.e. by increasing negative attitudes towards foreigners) but reinforced other ingroup ties (i.e. by increasing attachment to the ingroup values). Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source]

Compensatory biases after ingroup threat: ,yeah, but we have a good personality'

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, Issue 4 2001
Maria Rosaria Cadinu
It was hypothesized that participants who strongly identify with the ingroup and receive unfavorable feedback about their group in one domain would compensate on alternative dimensions. A group of emergency medical service volunteers received negative, positive or no feedback on their volunteer organization and were asked to rate the ingroup and an outgroup on dimensions alternative to the feedback. As predicted, high identifiers showed an increase in ingroup favoritism after negative feedback (i.e. compensation) and a decrease after positive feedback (i.e. modesty effect). In contrast, low identifiers distanced themselves from the ingroup after negative feedback and accentuated self-ingroup similarity after positive feedback. Results are discussed in relation to a schema-maintenance model through compensation (Seta & Seta, 1993) and social identity theory. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source]

Group Threat, Collective Angst, and Ingroup Forgiveness for the War in Iraq

POLITICAL PSYCHOLOGY, Issue 2 2009
Michael J. A. Wohl
We examine the consequences of threat to the ingroup for emotional reactions to ingroup harm doing. It was hypothesized that reminders of a past threat to the ingroup would induce collective angst, and this emotional reaction would increase forgiveness of the ingroup for its harmful actions toward another group. In Experiment 1, Americans read an article about the war in Iraq that implied Americans would soon experience another attack or one where such implied future threat to the ingroup was absent. When the ingroup's future was threatened, forgiveness for the harm Americans have committed in Iraq was increased, to the extent that collective angst was induced. In Experiment 2, Americans experienced more collective angst and were more willing to forgive their ingroup for their group's present harm doing in Iraq following reminders of either the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, or the 1941 Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor compared to when the victimization reminder was irrelevant to the ingroup. We discuss why ingroup threat encourages ingroup forgiveness for current harm doing. [source]