Victim Sensitivity and Proposal Size Modulate the Ingroup Favoritism During Fairness Norm Enforcement

People show a strong aversion to inequality and are willing to sacrifice their own interests to punish violations of fairness norms. Empirical research has found that group membership could influence the fairness judgment and norm enforcement of the individuals but has shown inconsistent findings and has not focused much on the potential moderators. Here, the two studies aimed to investigate whether victim sensitivity and proposal size moderate the impact of group membership on reactions to unfair proposals. In both studies, the participants with different victim sensitivity (low vs. high group) played the hypothetical (Study 1) and incentivized (Study 2) ultimatum game under the intragroup and intergroup condition and indicated their responses to the different proposals. Results showed that, regardless of the victim sensitivity, ingroup member is often given preferential and positive treatment. Low victim sensitive persons are more likely to accept unfair offers from the ingroup than the outgroup, while this effect was attenuated for those with high victim sensitivity, especially for highly ambiguous unfair offers (offer 6:4 in Study 1 and 8:2 in Study 2). Moreover, the ingroup favoritism score for ambiguous unfair offers was smaller for high compared with the victim sensitivity group. Taken together, the victim sensitivity, and proposal size could moderate the ingroup favoritism on responses to unfairness.

Negative media portrayals of immigrants increase ingroup favoritism and hostile physiological and emotional reactions

Anti-immigration rhetoric in the mass media has intensified over the last two decades, potentially decreasing prosocial behavior and increasing outgroup hostility toward immigrants, and fostering ingroup favoritism toward natives. We aim to understand the effects of negative and positive discourses about immigration on prosociality at different levels of societal ethnic diversity. In two studies (student sample, nationally representative sample), we conduct a survey and a 3X3 between-subject experiment, including money-incentivized behavioral games measuring prosociality. We manipulate media representations of immigrants and the probability of interacting with immigrants (the latter measuring diversity). Results show that negative news affects prosociality as a function of the probability of interacting with immigrants. Negative portrayals increase altruism and trustworthiness in ethnically homogenous settings relative to unknown and ethnically-mixed contexts. These results are stronger for right-wing and high-prejudice respondents. Moreover, negative media portrayals of immigrants increase the testosterone-cortisol ratio, which is a proxy for proneness to social aggression. Negative news also increases outgroup-related perceived health risk, outgroup anxiety and outgroup threat less in ethnically-homogeneous contexts. Overall, negative portrayals of immigrants generate physiological and emotional hostility toward the outgroup, and ingroup favoritism in economic transactions, possibly determining efficiency losses in ethnically-diverse markets, relative to ethnically-homogeneous markets.

Reducing Prejudice By Enhancing the Other Rather than the Self

Some research suggests that self-enhancement is widespread and may exacerbate ingroup favoritism. What if, rather than engaging in self-enhancement, individuals focused on enhancing others? Could enhancing others produce less prejudice than self-enhancement? Three studies tested the effect of self-enhancement versus ‘other-enhancement’ on prejudice. In Study 1 (N=95), a repeated measures design showed that participants demonstrated less negative affect and less implicit bias after reflecting on another person’s positive traits relative to their own. In Study 2 (N=169), we extended this effect to outgroup enhancement. Participants who reflected on an outgroup strength showed less negative affect and less racism than those who reflected on an ingroup strength and those in a comparison condition. Study 3 (N=380) validated these experimental effects by showing that other-enhancement is negatively associated with racism and sexism, whereas self-enhancement is not. Study 3 also examined a theorized antecedent of other-enhancement – humility. We discuss the importance of enhancing others in reducing prejudice.

Stereotypes from the Inside

Communication scholars often examine immigrants’ ingroup favoritism to study their intergroup/intercultural communication. Less is known about how some immigrants exhibit outgroup favoritism for the host culture and how outgroup favoritism relates to their ingroup communication. Drawn upon literatures on outgroup favoritism, this study understands international/intercultural communication in a global system where some immigrants favor the hosting outgroup. The researcher investigates how Chinese international students experience their peers’ performance of outgroup favoritism 崇洋媚外 in the U.S. Through in-depth interviews (n = 15), this study identified how outgroup favoritism enacts negative ingroup stereotyping and ingroup distancing. Students with outgroup favoritism strategically negotiate for less ingroup membership and more outgroup affiliation, creating mutual exclusion among ingroup members. Discussion focuses on Chinese international students’ communication dilemma with outgroup-favoring ingroup members

Are Immigrant-Origin Candidates Penalized Due to Ingroup Favoritism or Outgroup Hostility?

An influential explanation for the persistent political underrepresentation of minorities in elected office is that minority candidates are discriminated against by voters of the dominant ethnic group. We argue, however, for the need to distinguish between two forms of discrimination: ingroup favoritism and outgroup hostility. We measure the impact of each by using an extensive data set drawn from Swiss elections, where voters can cast both positive and negative preference votes for candidates. Our results show that immigrant-origin candidates with non-Swiss names incur an electoral disadvantage because they receive more negative preference votes than candidates with typically Swiss names. But we also find that minority candidates face a second disadvantage: voters discriminate in favor of majority candidates by allocating them more positive preference votes. These two forms of electoral discrimination are critically related to a candidate’s party, whereas the impact of the specific outgroup to which a minority candidate belongs is less pronounced than expected.

Expectations of Trustworthiness in Cross-Status Interactions

Although the literature on trust is vast, little is known about the attributes that trigger or inhibit trusting others we do not know. Using a vignette version of the trust game, we addressed the role that social standing plays in estimating trustworthiness of strangers in cross-status interactions in Chile, a non-WEIRD context also characterized by high inequality and social segregation. We found no relationship between the socioeconomic status of trustors and trusting behavior. However, trustees’ income was the most important attribute for trustors to decide how much to trust. We also found that higher-income trustees are less trusted in general, particularly by lower-status trustors. Finally, the results revealed that the influence of income differences on trust was higher for lower-status participants: they are more trustful of others of similar status. We did not observe a similar effect of ingroup favoritism on trust among higher-status participants. These results suggest that income differences are decisive in the trust decisions of lower-status individuals.

The Spatial Ingroup Bias: Ingroup Teams Are Positioned Where Writing Starts

In four studies, we test the hypothesis that people, asked to envisage interactions between an ingroup and an outgroup, tend to spatially represent the ingroup where writing starts (e.g., left in Italian) and as acting along script direction. Using soccer as a highly competitive intergroup setting, in Study 1 ( N = 100) Italian soccer fans were found to envisage their team on the left side of a horizontal soccer field, hence playing rightward. Studies 2a and 2b ( N = 219 Italian and N = 200 English speakers) replicate this finding, regardless of whether the own team was stronger or weaker than the rival team. Study 3 ( N = 67 Italian and N = 67 Arabic speakers) illustrates the cultural underpinnings of the Spatial Intergroup Bias, showing a rightward ingroup bias for Italian speakers and a leftward ingroup bias for Arabic speakers. Findings are discussed in relation to how space is deployed to symbolically express ingroup favoritism (Spatial Ingroup Bias) versus shared stereotypes (Spatial Agency Bias).