Tag: SJSU

It’s 2014 and after my first semester at San Jose State I feel excited and ready for the next challenge of my life at school. The first few weeks and last few weeks made me understand that school is an experience and if you want to live that experience you have to enjoy what you’re doing. The first thing that caught my eye was the idea about ingroups and outgroups. As I started reading about this in our assigned class readings, I noticed that Social and Prejudice pscyhology had a lot in common. So, throughout the first semester I wrote a Literature review about this research topic and I ended up learning about myself and the groups we form. Much of this is discussed in the paper and I thought I would post it here on this blog (
“Working man’s” comment: I got a 46/50 on this paper and I’m very proud of it)

Perception of Ingroups and Outgroups in the Present and Past

Jose Diaz

PSYC 100 W, Fall 2013, Section 05

San Jose State University

Word Count: 2,934 words

Ingroups and Outgroups from different perspectives

As individuals, we partake in groups as they assist in identifying who we are. Allport (1954) categorized individuals as being a part of ingroups and outgroups. The ingroup is the group you are in and the outgroup is the one you are not part of. Early research on ingroups and outgroups was generally based on Blacks and Whites. For example, Taylor, Fiske, Etcoff and Ruderman (1978) conducted an experiment exposing the perception of race. In the experiment, Black and White people were having a conversation and participants were able to tell the race of a person but not the exact identity of the individual. The same study also found that the stereotypes of Black and White people can be processed automatically. Wittenbrink, Judd, and Park (2001) studied this effect by measuring people’s stereotypes with the task of flashing several words on a computer screen. The results by Wittenbrink et al. (2001) showed statistically significant evidence for automatic stereotyping with the process of the word Black being flashed and participants associating the word with negative stereotypes of the race (e.g. threatening, dishonest, and lazy). However, the word White was associated with more positive stereotypes of the race such as responsible, ambitious, and wealthy. The perception of an ingroup and an outgroup early on in research found that the positive stereotypes were seen in the dominant group at the time but recently there have been studies done on other groups. The groups that are to be examined in this review are bullies, college students, Asian Americans, and students taking part in a dot counting task. The purpose in this review is to further understand the necessary components of an ingroup and an outgroup in other avenues of research. I found that recent research has several parallels to studies done in the past (e.g. ingroup bias, group paradigms, and perspective approach) giving ideas for future studies. While previous research has been on Blacks and Whites, bullies are one group of individuals that has been unexamined. The roles and the perception that individuals have are examined, thus, allowing the experiment to go in a few directions.                                              Huitsing and Veenstra (2012) conducted a study to analyze the processes of social networks and to explore bullying in a classroom setting (i.e. how the initiators dominated their victims and how well liked the bullies became in the classroom). Huitsing and Veenstra recruited 19 students from a middle school and administered a questionnaire to examine concepts in bully groups such as bullying, assisting, defending, and reinforcing. The students were asked to nominate as many of their peers as possible for bullying, assisting, or otherwise but the exception was that they could not nominate everyone for these roles. The questionnaire contained several descriptions of the bully group (assisting and bullying) and who was in the popular group (friendship and popularity).  The process of identifying the bully in the questionnaire was helpful to see everyone’s perception due to the varied roles to be taken on by classmates whether it was bullying or assisting.                                                                                                                                  Results indicated that there were three children who were identified as taking part in bullying and the study also found that the defending boys and girls groups’ results were statistically significant. However, friendship and popularity were not statistically significant with this group of three bullies. Huitsing and Veenstra (2012) found that a group of four was deemed to be the most popular within their own group. The result within this subgroup was that they defended within their own group and they were nominated for bullying and reinforcing as well. The researchers discovered that bullies did not want to lose status (e.g. popularity and dominance) by showing sympathy for their victims and the bullies chose to stay close to their own group of friends. The roles of bullies and defenders may change from one situation to the next due to the different victims that bullies pick out. Structure of the groups was defined by having ingroups and outgroups, both of which drew comparisons as to how we classify bullies and defenders in a situation (i.e. assisting and reinforcing the bullying in situations). Hamilton (1976) makes the distinction that as individuals, we point out our ingroup’s strengths as being flexible and open-minded defining this behavior as ingroup bias. Motivation generally plays a role in how individuals classify the ingroup they are a part of and they generally apply this to outgroups. In the next study, the researchers illustrated how different groups can apply motivation to the principle of ingroups and outgroups when it comes to perception.                                                                                                                                  The purpose of the study was to examine the relationship between accepting someone from an outgroup and the impact that it had on one’s motivation to respond without prejudice. Kuntsman et al. (2013) also wanted to test the idea of putting personal needs behind and gaining some long-term goal. The term Kuntsman et al. used for the measure they were testing was Internal Motivation to respond without prejudice (IMS). Kunstman et al. recruited 40 White psychology students from Florida State University where the participants were to list two (easy condition) or ten situations (hard condition) in which they were accepted by Black people. Internal Motivation to respond without prejudice was predicted to be not as significant when a participant was to list ten situations in which Black people accepted them. Kunstman et al. added a second element to the same study which was a fabricated program named FSU Connect. After completing the first task, participants were asked in a ten-item questionnaire if they would be interested in joining FSU Connect; in the questionnaire they were also asked about interacting with students of different backgrounds and about the cost that would be included with the program in place.                          The participants’ results where they were asked to list two conditions in which they were accepted by Black people were statistically significant. Kunstman et al. affirmed that the more often participants were able to recall information, the more they would not be prejudiced against the outgroup. As it pertains to FSU Connect, the participants that had a better recall IMS had a more positive affirmation towards the program. Kunstman et al. found IMS as a significant predictor of participants wanting friendships and provoking interracial contact. The choice of playing a role in a group is a key component of motivation and the researchers suggest future research on this. An impending question asked by the researchers is if the interaction is authentic between majority and minority groups. The research on internal motivation does have some emphasis on it which gives evidence that it is more difficult to recall instances where one is accepted. In this case, how do individuals go about in situations where they have to identify themselves with a group and therefore have to stay consistent with those attitudes? Incidentally, a study was done by researchers exemplifying there need state and identification within a group.                                                                                                                                          The purpose of the study conducted by Pickett, Bonner, & Coleman (2002) was to examine self-stereotyping and the impact that it has on ingroups. Self-stereotyping is seen as a process whereby the individual begins to view themselves as being consistent with the stereotypes of their ingroups. The study was set up as a 3x2x2x2 factorial design with the following categories: need state, identification, ingroup status, and trait type. Each of these categories was classified with different levels that varied (i.e. high for ingroup status, stereotype irrelevant for trait type, and arousal for need). Testing to see how they would compare themselves with students from other college campuses, a total of 123 participants from Ohio State University completed the Self Attribution Questionnaire (SAQ) on their arousal level and the students were given fake feedback as to how they were identified. Each category as identified by Pickett et al. (e.g. need for assimilation, need for differentiation, and no need for arousal) had different scores that were either statistically significant or not depending on whether or not the numbers were above or below the mean.                                                                                                                                           Pickett et al. found that the students comparing themselves with other college students wanted close proximity with the ingroup and they wanted to keep their distance from the out group. The differentiation group and the assimilation group wanted to stay close to the ingroup but the differentiation group in particular wanted to get closer to the out group. The two need groups in the high-identity section were found by Pickett et al. to identify with the traits that were in the SAQ but this was not statistically significant for those in the low-identity group. Pickett et al. discovered that manipulation was significant as it had an impact on each group in the factorial design. Pickett et al did find what they were looking for in that the more one self-stereotyped the more likely the individual was high identifying within their own group. Lastly, when self-stereotypes are not in line with the ingroup’s beliefs, the identification one has can feel threatened. Identification, barring any other cofounding variables, has some effect on how individuals perceive a situation where they are a part of an ingroup. Perception, coupled with identification, gives credence as how to classify our judgments and understanding of other groups. As a result of perception, a study was conducted to examine how different groups of individuals would perceive a piece of film and how roles played a role in this instance.                                                                                                                  The purpose of the study by Shih, Wang, Trahan Bucher, and Stotzer (2009) was to see how empathy would apply to the Asian American outgroup members. Shih et al. also wanted to see how their empathy was as it related to a college applicant’s race. Shih et al. used 84 undergraduate students from the University of Michigan. The study used a 2×2 factorial design where there were the conditions of viewing (i.e. perspective and control) and the college applicants race (i.e. White or Asian). Participants viewed a scene from Joy Luck Club with the main character of the film explaining the problems of growing up in America as an Asian. The researchers then asked participants to either put themselves in the main character’s shoes and the feelings the character has but in the second instance, they were told to act as a newspaper critic giving their thoughts on the clip. Shih et al. then randomized the Asian or White college application for the participants to view and in this portion the name in the application was the same (Michael Young).                                                                                                                                    Results by Shih et al. found that participants who took the perspective approach were able to show more emphatic feelings. Participants that viewed the film clip from a perspective condition were more likely to view the Asian college applicant as more likeable as opposed to the participants in the control condition. In the control condition, participants were more likely to show more likeability towards the White applicant. Shih et al. found the manipulation of empathy to be moderately significant. The researchers bring up the point that their study may be limited because the usage of one film clip does not serve as sufficient evidence for the empathy factor. There is also the potential of empathy being used as an efficient tool to reduce prejudice attitudes in an ingroup and applying those improved attitudes towards an outgroup. However, if empathy is being used towards one particular group (Asians) then it would not be generalized towards other groups because of feelings of guilt and injustice towards the outgroup. On the whole, how a group of individuals viewed a particular applicant was of importance because of the different circumstances that were put forth. Ingroups and outgroups have been defined in studies done by Tajfel et al. (1971) as being minimal, meaning that just being a part of a group as a member has implications for how you favor your own group. This was demonstrated by an experiment where Tajfel et al. had participants do a dot counting task. Scores were not recorded for the task and participants were randomly assigned to a group. The results of the experiment were replicated in the next study.                                                                                                                                       The purpose of the DiDonato, Ulrich, and Krueger (2011) study was to explore an induction model that employs the minimal group paradigm. Their hypotheses were that participants would respond favorably to the ingroup, have a mixed reaction to the mixed group, and have a weak reaction to the out-group. DiDonato et al. used 70 male and female undergraduate students. The materials used for the experiment included a slideshow with paintings by two different artists and a second slideshow with dots. Participants were asked to estimate how many dots were shown (with four possible choices) as well being asked which set of paintings they preferred (Klee or Kandinsky). The participants proceeded to fill out a personality questionnaire with 20 items as it was described to them as being relative to the dot counting task. The results of the first part of the experiment came back to the participants where they were then told (a) to estimate the size of each group, (b) the endorsements of each group, and (c) to rate the overall similarity they had with each group.                                                                                                                          Results by DiDonato et al. found that the more distance there were between a person’s ingroup and another group, the more likely they would not project favorably to a mixed group or the outgroup. Self-judgments had a statistically significant impact on differentiation as ingroups differentiated towards outgroups but, the differentiation portion did not apply entirely to the mixed group. The results for ingroup favoritism were significant as the self was found to desire their own group and not to favor an outgroup or a mixed group. DiDonato et al. found no evidence for creating a self-image derived from describing one’s ingroup positively. From a theoretical perspective, DiDonato’s et al. research was in line with how individuals rank their ingroup, mixed group, and outgroup respectively in that order. Their estimation of positive self-image increasing because of projection was found to vary from one person to the next because of the influence of the different groups in the study. With the induction model being used as a basis for the experiment, the researchers had significant results and their hope was that future research can be done on groups. Much of the previous research that implemented the dot counting task has been replicated and Didonato et al. took note that being a part of one group can affect the perception of other outgroup                                                                                                                          Perception of ingroups and outgroups has varied significantly in the past few years. At first, studies were conducted to measure the various stereotypes that were associated with White and Black races. However, over recent time, various other groups have been studied to measure motivation, perception, identity, membership, and roles within these various groups. This was done in order to understand the perception of each individual and the manipulation of settings showed this. The groups that were studied showed that being close and having needs for a situation affects anxiety and the wanting to belong to a group.                                                                                          Ingroups and outgroups have a profound impact on how we as individuals view each other. Future studies on this hope to not only replicate the understandings of various ingroups and outgroups but also to further implement usage of different psychological factors. Some of these include empathy, differentiation, assimilation, the minimal group paradigm, and adjustment. Perception and anxiety play a role in this as we want to be able to enjoy the comforts of our own needs. Doing this requires being a part of a group as well as endorsing the group that one is a part of. To fully understand how ingroups and outgroups work, it is necessary to understand perception, needs, and awareness of membership in a group.

 

 

 

 

 

References:

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Oxford England: Addison-Wesley.

DiDonato, T. E., Ullrich, J., & Krueger, J. I. (2011). Social perception as induction and     inference: An integrative model of intergroup differentiation, ingroup favoritism, and            differential accuracy. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 100(1), 66-83.      doi:10.1037/a0021051

Hamilton, D.L. (1976). Cognitive biases in the perception of social groups. In J.S. Carroll & J.W. Payne (Eds.), Cognition and social behavior (pp.81-93). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Huitsing, G., & Veenstra, R. (2012). Bullying in classrooms: Participant roles from a social network perspective. Aggressive Behavior, 38(6), 494-509. doi:10.1002/ab.21438

Kunstman, J. W., Plant, E., Zielaskowski, K., & LaCosse, J. (2013). Feeling in with the outgroup: Outgroup acceptance and the internalization of the motivation to respond without prejudice. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 105(3), 443-457. doi:10.1037/a0033082

Pickett, C. L., Bonner, B. L., & Coleman, J. M. (2002). Motivated self-stereotyping: Heightened assimilation and differentiation needs result in increased levels of positive and negative self-stereotyping. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 82(4), 543-562. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.4.543

Shih, M., Wang, E., Trahan Bucher, A., & Stotzer, R. (2009). Perspective taking: Reducing prejudice towards general outgroups and specific individuals. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12(5), 565-577. doi:10.1177/1368430209337463

Tajfel,  H., Flament,  C., Billig, K., & Bundy, R. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149-175.

Taylor, S., Fiske, S., Etcoff, N., & Ruderman, A. (1978). “Categorical and contextual bases of person memory and stereotyping”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36 (7): 778–793.

Wittenbrink, B., Judd, C. M., & Park, B. (2001). Evaluative versus conceptual judgments in automatic stereotyping and prejudice. Journal Of Experimental Social Psychology, 37(3), 244-252. doi:10.1006/jesp.2000.1456