Ingroup Love and Outgroup Hate

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Silvia Moscatelli ◽  
Monica Rubini
Keyword(s):  
Relative Deprivation ◽  
Intergroup Bias ◽  
Group Status ◽  
Intergroup Communication ◽  
Linguistic Patterns ◽  
Linguistic Abstraction ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Linguistic Level ◽  
Negative Feelings ◽  
High Degree

In everyday life, we are faced with disparate examples of intergroup bias, ranging from a mild tendency to ingroup favoritism to harsh episodes of discrimination, aggression, and even conflicts between groups. Where do they stem from? The origins of intergroup bias can be traced back to two main motivations, that is, attachment to one’s own group (“ingroup love”) and negative feelings toward outgroups (“outgroup hate”). Although lay people, but also some researchers, see the two motivations as intertwined, growing evidence from different fields (e.g., social psychology, evolutionary psychology, and neuroscience) has indicated that intergroup bias is more often driven by needs of ingroup protection and affiliation, which do not imply outgroup hostility or competitive attitudes. Outgroup hate is instead likely to arise in intergroup contexts characterized by a high degree of enmity. It is important that members of the groups involved, but also external observers, recognize ingroup love as the primary motor of intergroup conflict: the attribution of hate to the outgroup’s behavior renders negotiation and conflict resolution harder while at the same time justifying severe aggression or even annihilation of the opposing outgroup. In the domain of intergroup communication, an intriguing way through which group members express their ingroup love and outgroup hate is represented by variations of linguistic abstraction and valence in depicting behaviors performed by ingroup or outgroup members. This unintended use of language reveals that group members are more prone to express ingroup love also at a linguistic level. However, specific changes in intergroup relations along variables such as group size, group status, or relative deprivation can give rise to linguistic patterns of outgroup hate.

scholarly journals Expressing Prejudice through the Linguistic Intergroup Bias: Second Language Confidence and Identity among Minority Group Members

2008 ◽  
pp. 109-130 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica L. Shulman ◽  
Richard Clément1
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Communication Theory ◽  
Minority Group ◽  
Group Identification ◽  
Verbal Communication ◽  
Intergroup Bias ◽  
Intergroup Communication ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Linguistic Intergroup Bias

Abstract The role of verbal communication in the transmission of prejudice has received much theoretical attention (Hecht, 1998; Le Couteur & Augoustinos, 2001), including the features of the linguistic intergroup bias (Maass, Salvi, Arcuri, & Semin, 1989), yet few studies have examined the acquisition of an out-group language as a factor in mitigating prejudicial speech. The conditions under which minority Canadian Francophones use linguistic bias when communicating about the in- and out-group (i.e., Canadian Anglophones) were investigated. Data was collected from 110 Francophone students. Predictions were confirmed but only when out-group identification was considered. Further, out-group identification and second language confidence were both related to a decrease in out-group derogation; however, the same factors appear to promote linguistically biased speech toward the in-group. Results are discussed within current intergroup communication theory.

Intergroup Behavior

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aharon Levy ◽  
John F. Dovidio
Keyword(s):  
Intergroup Relations ◽  
Work Teams ◽  
Social Categorization ◽  
Intergroup Bias ◽  
Preferential Treatment ◽  
Unfair Treatment ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Sport Clubs ◽  
Negative Feelings ◽  
Intergroup Behavior

Intergroup behavior involves the feelings, perceptions, beliefs, and actions that groups and their members have toward another group and its members. It frequently involves various forms of bias, such as prejudice (negative feelings and evaluations), stereotypes (beliefs about groups and their members), and discrimination (unfair treatment). However, intergroup bias does not necessarily require overtly negative orientations toward another group. Such bias may reflect favorable attitudes toward members of one’s own group (the ingroup) and preferential treatment of them, rather than hostility or ill-treatment of other groups (outgroups). Intergroup behavior can also be positive, representing cooperation (conduct and exchange that benefits both the ingroup and the outgroup) or prosocial behavior (actions that improve the welfare of another group and its members). The nature of intergroup behavior is determined by psychological processes associated with social categorization, by the identification and motivations of group members, and by the consequent relationship between groups. These processes apply to almost any type of group, including but not limited to work teams, divisions within an organization, companies, sport clubs, ethnic groups, countries, religions, and races. Understanding the psychological dynamics of intergroup relations can guide the development of interventions to achieve stable, constructive, and mutually beneficial exchanges between groups and their members.

scholarly journals Partisan Ambivalence and Electoral Decision Making

2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-28
Author(s):  
Stephen C. Craig ◽  
Paulina Cossette ◽  
Michael Martinez
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
American Politics ◽  
Political Campaigns ◽  
Survey Experiment ◽  
Campaign Ads ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Negative Feelings ◽  
Democrats And Republicans ◽  
High Degree

American politics today is driven largely by deep divisions between Democrats and Republicans. That said, there are many people who view the opposition in an overwhelmingly negative light – but who simultaneously possess a mix of positive and negative feelings toward their own party. This paper is a response to prior research (e.g., Lavine, Johnson, and Steenbergen 2012) indicating that such ambivalence increases the probability that voters will engage in "deliberative" (or "effortful") rather than "heuristic" thinking when responding to the choices presented to them in political campaigns. We extend the logic of this argument to a hypothetical race for Congress, using data from a survey experiment to determine whether a high degree of ambivalence toward one's party makes voters more responsive to a negative attack against the candidate of that party. In fact, we find little evidence that partisan ambivalence promotes a deliberative response to negative campaign ads.

scholarly journals Co-Cultural Theory and Communication

Communication ◽  
2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Lived Experiences ◽  
Cultural Difference ◽  
Cultural Theory ◽  
The United States ◽  
Basic Question ◽  
Cultural Group ◽  
Cultural Groups ◽  
Dominant Group ◽  
Group Status ◽  
Group Members

Co-cultural communication theory, or co-cultural theory for short, emerged from the scholarly research of Mark Orbe in the 1990s. A co-cultural theoretical approach provides a lens to understand how traditionally underrepresented group members communicate within societal structures governed by cultural groups that have, over time, achieved dominant group status. The theory’s foundation was established by Orbe and colleagues by exploring the communicative lived experiences of underrepresented group members in the United States; the earliest work engaged the communication of co-cultural groups defined through race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, disability, and sexual orientation. The theory centralizes the lived experiences of co-cultural group members and focuses on instances when cultural difference is regarded as salient. At its core, co-cultural theory explores one basic question: How do co-cultural group members use communication to negotiate their cultural identities with others (both like and unlike themselves) in a societal context where they are traditionally marginalized? Through discovery-oriented qualitative research, six factors emerged (field of experience, abilities, perceived costs and rewards, communication approach, preferred outcome, and situational context) as central to the selection of specific co-cultural practices. Since its inception, co-cultural theory has been embraced as a core theory for individuals interested in studying the intersection of culture, power, and communication.

scholarly journals The analysis of individual Visegrad group members’ agrarian export sensitivity in relation to selected macroeconomic aggregations

2011 ◽  
Vol 59 (4) ◽  
pp. 327-342
Author(s):  
Miroslav Svatoš ◽  
Luboš Smutka
Keyword(s):  
Agricultural Trade ◽  
Added Value ◽  
The Czech Republic ◽  
Grocery Industry ◽  
Agricultural Exports ◽  
Group Members ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Individual ◽  
High Degree ◽  
Visegrad Group

This paper analyzes the development of agricultural trade of the countries of the Visegrad Group with emphasis on development of the value of agricultural exports of the individual countries. The subject matter of the analysis is the sensitivity of the commodity structure of agricultural exports of individual countries and the identification of aggregations that are the least and the most sensitive to changes to the external and internal economic environment. From the conducted research, agricultural trade in the V4 countries was found to have developed very dynamically from 1993 to 2008, while the commodity structure of exports has constantly narrowed as the degree of specialization of the individual countries has increased (this applies especially to the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary). From the results of analysis of sensitivity to changes of selected variables relating to the development of the value of agricultural exports of the individual V4 countries, it appears that the aggregations that react most sensitively to changes are those that are the subject of re-exports, followed by the aggregations that are characterized by a high degree of added value. In general it can be said that products of agricultural primary production exhibit less sensitivity in comparison with grocery industry products. This is confirmed by the general trend arising from the very nature of consumer behaviour.

scholarly journals Relative deprivation and intergroup competition

2010 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 685-700 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nir Halevy ◽  
Eileen Y. Chou ◽  
Taya R. Cohen ◽  
Gary Bornstein
Keyword(s):  
Relative Deprivation ◽  
Prisoner’S Dilemma ◽  
Group Level ◽  
Experimental Paradigm ◽  
Destructive Behavior ◽  
Intergroup Competition ◽  
Group Outcomes ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Collective Efficiency ◽  
Individual Participation

Two experiments utilized a new experimental paradigm—the Intergroup Prisoner’s Dilemma— Maximizing Difference (IPD-MD) game—to study how relative deprivation at the group level affects intergroup competition. The IPD-MD game enables group members to make a costly contribution to either a within-group pool that benefits fellow ingroup members, or a between-group pool, which, in addition, harms outgroup members. We found that when group members were put in a disadvantaged position, either by previous actions of the outgroup (Experiment 1) or by random misfortune (Experiment 2), they contributed substantially more to the competitive between-group pool. This destructive behavior both minimized inequality between the groups and reduced collective efficiency. Our results underscore the conditions that lead group members to care about relative (rather than absolute) group outcomes and highlight the need to differentiate between the motivation to get ahead and the motivation not to fall behind: the latter, it appears, is what motivates individual participation in destructive intergroup competition.

Discursive Psychological Approaches to Intergroup Communication

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martha Augoustinos ◽  
Simon Goodman
Keyword(s):  
Social Practice ◽  
Social Inequalities ◽  
Large Body ◽  
Coherent System ◽  
Intergroup Communication ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
Majority Group ◽  
Recent Emergence ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Democratic Societies

The recent emergence of discursive psychological approaches has challenged the dominance of cognitive and structural models of language that theorize it as an abstract and coherent system of meanings. Epistemologically informed by social constructionism, discursive psychological approaches examine how language is actually used in everyday formal and informal talk or discourse. Discourse (both written text and talk) is treated as a social practice that is both central to understanding and constructing social reality and oriented to the practical concerns of everyday life. Discursive psychological approaches to intergroup communication have produced a large body of research examining everyday informal talk and institutional discourse on intergroup relations in liberal democratic societies. This work has focused primarily on the text and talk of majority group members and powerful elites about matters pertaining to race, immigration, ethnicity, and gender. How speakers attend to and account for group differences in discourse is perceived to be intimately related to the reproduction and legitimation of social inequalities in liberal democratic societies. This body of research has identified common and pervasive patterns of talk by majority group members that are seen as contributing to the continued marginalization and social exclusion of minorities. These discursive patterns include: positive self and negative other presentation, denials of prejudice, discursive deracialization, and using liberal arguments to justify and legitimate inequality.

Group size, group status and trait valence as determinants of intergroup bias: Stereotyping in Finland and Sweden

2008 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 637-651 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karmela Liebkind ◽  
Anna Henning-Lindblom ◽  
Erling Solheim
Keyword(s):  
Group Size ◽  
Intergroup Bias ◽  
Size Group ◽  
Group Status

Effects of Linguistic Abstractness in the Mass Media

2010 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 99-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Geschke ◽  
Kai Sassenberg ◽  
Georg Ruhrmann ◽  
Denise Sommer
Keyword(s):  
Mass Media ◽  
Media Coverage ◽  
Intergroup Bias ◽  
Positive Behavior ◽  
Negative Behavior ◽  
News Reports ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Linguistic Intergroup Bias ◽  
The Mass Media

Media coverage contributes to the perpetuation of stereotypes and prejudice. So far, research has focused on biased content rather than style in reporting about minorities. One such stylistic dimension is the so-called linguistic intergroup bias: The tendency to describe positive behavior of members of one’s own group and negative behavior of other groups’ members in a more abstract way (compared to the same behavior of the respective other group). Recipients of communication biased in this way judge the described individuals in line with abstract descriptions (i.e., own-group members more positively than members of other groups). The current study demonstrates that linguistically biased news reports about minorities lead to higher levels of prejudice. Hence, media coverage does not only affect attitudes about minorities by what is reported, but also by how it is presented.

Group status, group bias, and adolescents' reasoning about the treatment of others in school contexts

2006 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 208-218 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stacey S. Horn
Keyword(s):  
Moral Reasoning ◽  
Social Acceptance ◽  
Reference Group ◽  
High Status ◽  
Group Status ◽  
School Contexts ◽  
Status Group ◽  
School Activities ◽  
Social Reference ◽  
Group Members

This study investigated how social group status and group bias are related to adolescents' reasoning about social acceptance. Ninth and eleventh-grade students ( N = 379) were asked to make judgments about the inclusion of individuals in school activities based on their peer crowd membership. The results of the study revealed that both participants' and the targets' social reference group status were related to adolescents' judgments about participation in school activities. Overall, high status group members were chosen more than low status group members to participate in school activities. Adolescents who identified themselves with high status groups, however, were significantly more likely to choose a high status target than adolescents identifying with low status groups or those listing no group at all. Further, these adolescents were more likely than adolescents who identified themselves with low status groups or listed no group to use conventional reasoning and less likely to use moral reasoning when justifying their judgments.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document