Composition of place, minority vs. majority group-status, & contextualized experience: The role of level of group representation, perceiving place in group-based terms, and sense of belonging in shaping collective behavior

The current studies (N = 1,709) explore why demographic composition of place matters. First, this work demonstrates that relative level of group representation affects one’s experience of place in the form of self-definition (self-categorization), perceptions of place being representative or characteristic of factors that distinguish the group from others (place-prototypicality), and sense of belonging (place-identification; Studies 1a-1e; Studies 2a & 2b). Second, the studies illustrate that group representation within place shapes the way group member’s approach (i.e., expectations of group-based treatment and procedural justice; Studies 2a-2c), understand (i.e., attribution for group-based events, Study 2b; responsiveness to bias-reduction intervention, Study 4a; sense of solidarity, Study 4b), and behave (i.e., prejudice, Studies 3a & 3b; collective action, Study 4c). More broadly, I present a Social identity Paradigm for Contextualized Experience (SPACE) that provides an organizing framework for the study of the impact of characteristics of place on social identity-based contextualized experience and (in turn) collective behavior. Taken together, the findings provide evidence of distinct psychological experience and orientation as a function of minority versus majority-group status within place, as well as for a group-based approach to place. Implications for the study of collective and intergroup behavior are discussed.

Moral-Exemplar Intervention: A New Paradigm for Conflict Resolution and Intergroup Reconciliation

Conflict resolution and intergroup reconciliation are difficult to achieve because of many social and psychological obstacles, such as people’s belief that members of a social group that is an adversary of their own group are mostly bad and essentially all the same. In this article, we introduce a novel intervention aimed at challenging these beliefs by exposing people to stories about individuals who have risked some important aspects of their lives to save the lives of other social groups’ members ( moral exemplars). The effects of this moral-exemplar intervention have been tested with field experiments in several postconflict contexts using members of real antagonistic groups. We discuss the results of these studies and three specific and important aspects of the moral-exemplar intervention: (a) its comparative advantage over existing social-psychological interventions aimed at conflict resolution and intergroup reconciliation, (b) its content and conditions, and (c) implications for future theorizing and research targeting prosocial changes in attitudes and intergroup behavior.

Pathogen Threat and In-group Cooperation

Disease-causing parasites and pathogens play a pivotal role in intergroup behavior. Previous studies have suggested that the selection pressure posed by pathogen threat has resulted in in-group assortative sociality, including xenophobia and in-group favoritism. While the current literature has collated numerous studies on the former, strikingly, there has not been much research on the relationship between pathogen threat and in-group cooperation. Drawing upon prior studies on the function of the behavioral immune system (BIS), we argued that the BIS might facilitate cooperation with in-group members as a reactive behavioral immune response to pathogen threat. More specifically, we held that individuals might utilize cooperative behavior to ensure that they can receive social support when they have contracted an infectious disease. We reviewed existing findings pertaining to the potential role of the BIS in in-group cooperation and discussed directions for future studies.

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.

Pathogen Threat and In-Group Cooperation

Disease-causing parasites and pathogens play a pivotal role in intergroup behavior. Previous studies have suggested that the selection pressure posed by pathogen threat has resulted in in-group assortative sociality, including xenophobia and in-group favoritism. While the current literature has collated numerous studies on the former, strikingly, there has not been much research on the relationship between pathogen threat and in-group cooperation. Drawing upon prior studies on the function of the behavioral immune system (BIS), we argued that the BIS might facilitate cooperation with in-group members as a reactive behavioral immune response to pathogen threat. More specifically, we held that individuals might utilize cooperative behavior to ensure that they can receive social support when they have contracted an infectious disease. We reviewed existing findings pertaining to the potential role of the BIS in in-group cooperation and discussed directions for future studies.

Violence, Displacement, and Support for Internally Displaced Persons: Evidence from Syria

What is the legacy of war, violence, and displacement on altruism toward diverse populations suffering similar hardships today? Prior research suggests these hardships have the potential to increase empathy that can in turn motivate altruism across identity boundaries. We test this hypothesis using survey data collected in 2017 from over 2,000 Syrians living in rebel-held regions where many internally displaced persons (IDPs) sought refuge. We find that Syrians previously exposed to violence were more likely to host IDPs. Using a conjoint experiment to measure hosting preferences over different types of IDPs, we show that these individuals also preferred to host sick and vulnerable IDPs and outgroup IDPs from the Kurdish ethnic minority. However, they were less likely to host IDPs from the Christian minority, possibly due to their association with the government. These results suggest that empathy and politics both play an important role in shaping the relationship between violence, altruism, and intergroup behavior during conflict.

Social Simulation of Intergroup Conflicts Using a New Model of Opinion Dynamics

The social identity theory proposed by Tajfel et al. provides insight into how group membership and self-categorization cause intergroup prejudice and discrimination, finally leading to social conflicts. However, unanswered questions remain: under what conditions can an “in-group” and an “out-group” transform conflictual intergroup behavior into a more harmonious relationship and avoid social conflict? Opinion dynamics theory and social simulation are appropriate methods to answer this question. In this study, a new model of opinion dynamics proposed by Ishii is adopted, and we conduct simulations of intergroup conflicts. The new model, along with social simulations, presents how an in-group and an out-group can develop social harmony and avoid social conflict. According to our simulations, when the two groups trust their members 100%, the opinion inside an in-group converges. However, intragroup opinion diverges as trust within the group gets lower. On the other hand, intergroup opinion converges when the intergroup trust is higher than 50%. If intergroup trust is higher than 80%, then the intergroup opinions of the two perfectly overlap. Furthermore, if intragroup trust is 70% and intergroup trust is as low as 50%, the two groups' opinions completely polarize. We also calculated additional cases where intragroup trust was fixed at 70%, but for one-third of an in-group member trust an out-group with various values. Finally, a method to avoid further social crises can be obtained by examining real-world cases of partisan conflicts in recent America.

Attitude importance, more than extremity, predicts costly intergroup behavior

Which features of attitudes toward minoritized racial out-groups best predict majority-group members’ costly behaviors? Social attitudes research has typically measured the extremity of social group valence—ranging from negative to positive—to predict intergroup behavior, assuming that people with more extreme evaluations toward social out-groups will engage more in behaviors that affect those out-groups. But this assumption is simplistic: many people make strongly-valenced statements—e.g., posting a message in support of racial justice on social media—without engaging in corresponding actions—e.g., participating in a racial justice protest. To explain this disconnect, we investigate an additional feature of social group attitudes, subjective attitude importance, as a competing predictor of engagement in costly intergroup behaviors. Across three studies, we find that when White respondents rate their attitudes toward minoritized racial out-groups as more important to them, they are more likely to give up money in order to prevent prejudiced norm signaling (Study 1), preserve their own reputations (Study 2), and affect a charitable donation to an ethnic out-group- supporting nonprofit (Study 3). By contrast, respondents’ attitude valence extremity was consistently a worse predictor of behavioral engagement than attitude importance. Our results suggest that including attitude importance measures in future social group attitude research would help better predict both supportive and discriminatory behaviors toward minoritized groups amid the ongoing racial and social justice movements.