Ya –Ru Chen, Joel Brockner and Xiao-Ping Chen conducted an experiment that examines the interactive effects of individial-collective primacy, ingroup performance and outgroup performance on ingroup favoritism. They define ingroup favoritism as the liability for group members to perform more constructive evaluations of their ingroup relative to outgroups (482).
Method:
The participants were consisted of two different cultures, The United States and China, and they were either students from the Indiana University or Peking University. They were divided into groups of 6-10 people. The experiment was divided into several stages. The first stage of the experiment was focused on setting apart the participants into two groups. They were informed that this division would be decided through attitudinal similarity. Then they filled an initial attitude survey. Also, while they were waiting for the results they completed a self-perception questionnaire. After the formation of the groups, they were shown their group members average responses of the attitude survey, which in reality were arranged by the experimenter. Then, the participants were asked to complete the Social-Cognitive Aptitude Test (SCAT.) They were told that this test was estimating “ intellectual and interpersonal competencies and is believed to be reliable indicator of an individual’ ability to process and integrate information and to make deductive inferences.” The test consisted of vignettes about ten couples. The participants were asked to make predictions about whether the couple’s would still be in relation a year after. The experimenters manipulated the feedback of the accuracy of the participants’ predictions. In the individual performance feedback participants’ performances were randomly assigned into three conditions, individual success, individual failure and no individual feedback. (484). Then they received ingroup and outgroup performance feedback. After feedbacks, participants completed another questionnaire that consisted measure of ingroup favoritism, manipulation checks and other measures.
Results:
Feedback manipulation was successful. Although, grater collective primacy was associated with more attachment to both ingroup and outgroups, the relationship with ingroup attachment was significantly stronger. Thus the study was successful in terms of preceding the participants to perceive their group members as an ingroup (486-87). Their findings presented that the collective-primacy had a positive correlation with ingroup favoritism when an unfavorable intergroup comparison was present. When both groups performed well or bad, there was no relationship between collective-primacy and ingroup favoritism (489).
Why do you think such change occurs?
Also, according to Chen, culture didn’t have a major effect on the ingroup favoritism in this study. In what ways culture relate to ingroup favoritism and why do you think it’s effect was insignificant in this case?
In this study, despite participants having no specific relationship to ingroup members and no specific differences to outgroup members, groups were assigned which in itself divides participants from outgroups. In the stages of group development (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977), these groups would have reached the stage of formation where participants would make adjustments to “fit in”. Even subtle changes in the language used from ingroups to outgroups initiates a change and introduces ingroup favoritism. Pronouns such as we, us and ours (that would be used amongst ingroup participants) generate positive responses (Charles Perdue et al., 1990). On the other hand, outgroup pronounces such as they, them and theirs, initiate a reversely negative, emotional response.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of culture I did not understand whether the participants from PRC and USA ever merged or were all studies done individually with PRC participants in their own groups and USA participants forming like groups? Were results taken under the same roof or in isolated situations, separately at PU and IU? These answers would possibly help me understand the relationship they were looking for between the two cultures.
Research shows that people from collectivist cultures are less likely to show ingroup biases than people from individualist cultures ( Heine, 2005; Lehman et al., 2004; Snibbe et al., 2003; Yuki, 2003). The reason that culture did not play a role in this experiment could be because people from collectivist cultures such as China, tend not see their feelings towards their ingroup as having an effect on their self esteem (Kenichiro Nakashima et al. 2008). The individualist Americans on the other hand may have been more interested in identifying with others whom they believe to have similar attitudes to their own since American culture of their generation places greater emphasis on individuality based on personality rather than on race.
ReplyDeleteIf the experiment focused more on the unique characteristics pertaining to each culture, there might have been more drastic results of ingroup favoritism. People tend to be more biased when dealing with content that involves religion, ethnicity, or nationalism because there is a sense of pride involved. “What’s nice about the need for social identity is that it leads us to derive pride from our connections with others, even if we don’t receive any direct benefits from these others” (Gagnon & Bourhis, 1996). “What’s sad, however, is that we often feel the need to belittle “them” in order to feel secure about “us.” Religious fervor, racial and ethnic conceit, and aggressive nationalism may all fulfill this more negative side of our social identity” (Kassin, pg. 150).
ReplyDeleteI believe that whenever people are divided into groups there becomes an understanding of us and them. Which leads to a understanding of discrimination that is called “ingroup favoritism” (Social Psychology 8th Edition pg. 162). Culture here does not make so much of a difference since when people are assigned to a group they start creating their own kind of culture and the individuals favor what the group favors in order to belong and to fit in.
ReplyDeleteAnother aspect to consider when looking at ingroup and outgroup perceptions is the outgroup homogeneity effect. The text defines the outgroup homogeneity effect “as the tendency to assume that there is greater similarity among members of outgroups than among members of ingroups” (Kassin 135). An example of this is classifying people from different Asian countries all as being Asian and not considering their differences. This is due to the lack personal contact and thus lack of knowledge of outgroups. Often, one does not have a full range of outgroup members and forms an opinion on a limited basis. Dario Paez has found that people from collectivistic cultures are more likely to view ingroup homogeneity than individualistic cultures (Kassin 136).
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhen coming together in a new group especially one that is forged, people are more likely to have a "need for affiliation". (McAdams, 1989) This can greatly account for a certain degree of ingroup favoritism where in members of a group seek similarities in one another and their "desire to establish and maintain many rewarding interpersonal relationships". This cross cultural human attribute is necessary to understand when studying group processes. Affiliation is often found to provide energy, attention, stimulation, and information which aids significantly in group processes. (Hill, 1987) This factor of "Need for Affiliation" greatly influences the ingroup collective-primacy. It is yet another reason for people to function strongly in groups.
ReplyDeleteI think that the size of the groups also have to be considered in this study. According to the textbook, the relative size and distinctiveness of a group also determines an ingroup (152, 7th edition textbook). “Noting that people want to belong to groups that are small enough for them to feel unique, Brewer and Pickett observed that ingroup loyalty and outgroup prejudice are more intense for groups that are in the minority than for members of large and inclusive majorities” (152). Since the groups were relatively small, 6-10 people, the size of the group could have had an effect on ingroup favoritism. In addition, since the range was 6-10, some groups could have had more people than others. Therefore, one group could have had six people, making them a minority, and one group could have had ten people, making them a majority. Belonging to a small group can be rewarding and part of one’s personal identity.
ReplyDeleteCulture and ethnicity does play a role in in-group and outgroup favoritism. Research shows that eyewitnesses more accurately identify people of their own racial group than any other racial group (e.g., Devine & Malpass, 1985; Meiss- ner & Brigham, 2001). Yet, when outgroup members are angry, the opposite occurs (Ackerman et al., 2006). When anger comes into play from another group, the human mind automatically makes strong note of who these people are in order to keep themselves and their group safe. Although this may not be what Ya-Ru Chen, Joel Brockner, and Xiao-Ping Chen have studied, this may have also played a factor in their experiment. For instance, if one of the outgroup members showed a tendency for aggression and hostility, ingroup favoritism may have occurred without anyone really paying conscious attention to it.
ReplyDeleteWhen people are forced to divide into groups, there automatically becomes a connection between the different kinds of groups. In order to stay and feel part of the group, people need to create a sense of security through finding their own connection in between the individuals in order to fit in. Through this search, they automatically create their own sense of category In order to unite as a group. which is why i think this particular experiment worked out the way it did
ReplyDeleteThe book suggests that prior to studies like this, ingroup favoritism had to do with the perception of the outgroup. For example, groups who were long term rivals, had a history of antagonism, were frustrated, and competed for a limited resource experienced ingroup favoritism. The study conducted by Henri Tajfel shows that ingroup favoritism is not related to these things, but rather people who are grouped together with no prior interaction still experience in group favoritism. This study makes it less surprising that groups of two ethnicities are interspersed that members still felt ingroup favoritism even when their group members were not of their ethnicity. What this study did not examine is what the affect on ingroup favoritism friendship in outgroups had. If the members of already established groups were broken up, would ingroup favoritsm still exist?
ReplyDeleteAn article I read said that culture affects how we perceive our ingroup and how we relate to them because we compare ourselves constantly to "socially relevant" members of our ingroup on the bases of attitudes, competency, wealth, etc (Iyenger, Lepper, Ross 1999). Because of this, the way the participants in the study viewed the others in their group would have affected how they evaluated them relative to the outgroup.
ReplyDeleteIn the textbook, Kassin mentions the minority influence. He states that "Consistently and regardless of topic, respondents who held minority opinions were slower to answer the questions than those of the majority" (Kassin, 239). This relates to what Karleigh says about considering the majority verses the minority. The study should have also looked at time and how long it took for each individual to answer the question. The study also could have had the second part in group form where each group had to choose whether the hypothetical couple would stay together. This would have shown how the individuals of one group work together and also how their ideas differ from when they are being asked individually.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that collective primacy was unrelated to in-group favouritism, when both performed well or both performed badly could be part of the explanation of social identity theory, which suggest that threats to self-esteem heighten the need for in-group favouritism. As both groups did equally well, or equally badly, there is no basis at that time for comparison, so need to increase in-group favouritism.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of this experiment the groups were not based on culture, in fact they were a mix of cultures, but the groups were based on an attitudinal survey, not race.
Although culture may impact on actual cultural groups, individuals can belong to different groups at the same time, and if the group is not based on ethnic issues, it is unlikely that it will impact on individual-collective primacy.