White Americans' preference for Black people in advertising has increased in the past 66 y: A meta-analysis

This study investigates Black and White consumers' preferences for Black versus White people in United States advertising contexts over 66 y, from 1956 until 2022, a time in which the United States has experienced significant ethno-racial diversification. Examining Black and White consumers' reactions to visual advertising over more than half a century offers a unique and dynamic view of interracial preferences. Mass advertising reaches an audience of billions and can shape people's attitudes and behavior, emphasizing the relevance of clarifying the influence of race in advertising, how it has evolved over time, and how it may contribute to mitigating discrimination based on racial perceptions. A meta-analysis of extant experiments into the relationship between the depicted endorser's race (i.e., the model in a visual ad) and the reaction of Black and White viewers pertains to 332 effect sizes from 62 studies reported in 52 scientific papers, comprising 10,186 Black and White participants. Our results are anchored in a conceptual framework, including a comprehensive set of perceiver (viewer), target (endorser), social/societal context, and publication characteristics. Without accounting for temporal dynamics, the results indicate ingroup favoritism, such that White viewers prefer White models and Black viewers prefer Black models. But by controlling for the publication year, it is possible to observe a time-dependent trend: Historically, White consumers preferred endorsers of the same race, but this preference has significantly shifted toward Black endorsers in recent years. In contrast, the level of Black consumers' reactions to endorsers of the same race remains largely unchanged over time.

The influence of in-group and out-group favouritism on the disciplinary practice of ethnic majority and minority preservice teachers

Teacher judgments and the disciplinary sanctioning of pupils can be understood as a function of the ethnic match, which means whether or not teachers and pupils have the same ethnic background. According to social identity theory, teachers should be motivated to protect positive self-esteem and therefore favour pupils of their ethnic in-group over pupils of their ethnic out-group. Following system justification theory however, it must be assumed that teachers also base their judgments and their disciplinary behaviour on the acceptance of social hierarchies. According to this theory, ethnic minority teachers should therefore favour ethnic majority pupils over ethnic minority pupils. We test these hypotheses by conducting an experimental study among 196 preservice teachers. The results suggest that ethnic majority participants do not discriminate against ethnic minority pupils. However, although ethnic minority participants seem to explicitly favour their in-group, they also implicitly tend to have more negative stereotypes about them. Moreover, the more negative explicit and implicit stereotypes ethnic minority participants have against pupils of their in-group, the more severely they punish pupils of their out-group. This could suggest that ethnic minority participants felt the desire to compensate for a negative view of their in-group by treating their out-group more harshly.

Being Attuned to Intergroup Differences in Mergers: The Role of Aligned Leaders for Low-Status Groups

The present research focused on responses of low-status group members to a merger with a high-status group. A study was conducted (N = 153) in which the alignment of the leader for the merged group (ingroup vs. outgroup) and leader behavior (equality, outgroup favoritism, ingroup favoritism, complementarity) were manipulated. The authors predicted that the leader, by his or her behavior, would play an important role in defining the new relationship between premerger groups. Overall, low-status ingroup leaders were evaluated more positively than high-status outgroup leaders. Ingroup leaders were evaluated more favorably and were more likely to engender a common identity in the merged group than were outgroup leaders when leaders behaved in an ingroup-favoring or complementary fashion. In contrast, evaluations of ingroup and outgroup leaders did not differ when the leader stressed equality or was outgroup favoring. The findings demonstrate the important role leaders can play in accentuating or de-emphasizing premerger status differences.

Predicting the Paths of Peripherals: The Interaction of Identification and Future Possibilities

Two studies investigated how both degree of identification and the individual’s position within the group influence aspects of group loyalty. The authors considered ingroup position in terms of both the individual’s current position within a group and expectations concerning the likelihood that one’s position might change in the future. Peripheral group members learned that their acceptance by other group members would improve in the future or that they could expect rejection by other group members. Various indices of group loyalty (ingroup homogeneity, motivation to work for the group, and evaluation of a motivated group member) showed that when group members anticipated future rejection, the lower the identification the less loyal they were. In contrast, those who expected future acceptance were more loyal (more motivated to work for the group) the lower their identification. Current group behavior depends on both intragroup future expectations and level of identification.

Protecting Threatened Identity: Sticking with the Group by Emphasizing Ingroup Heterogeneity

In two studies (Ns=163, 164), the authors tested the prediction that perceptions of group variability can steer and guide the way that loyalty is expressed in times of identity threat. In both studies, participants were classified as lower or higher identifiers on the basis of their scores on a group identification measure, and manipulations involved group variability perceptions (homogeneous ingroup vs. heterogeneous ingroup) and threat to the ingroup. Higher identifiers presented with a homogeneous ingroup perceived more ingroup homogeneity under threat than when there was no threat. In contrast, higher identifiers who perceived the ingroup initially as heterogeneous perceived more ingroup heterogeneity under threat than in no threat conditions. Lower identifiers perceived more ingroup heterogeneity under threat (vs. no threat) irrespective of manipulated group variability perceptions. Discussion focuses on different ways that group loyalty can be expressed in times of identity threat.

Effects of peer group rejection, group membership, and group norms, on children's outgroup prejudice

This study examined the effects on 6- and 8-year old children ( n = 160) of rejection versus acceptance by an initial group, the reason for the rejection or acceptance (personal versus category-based), and the norms (inclusion versus exclusion) of a new group to which the children were assigned, on their negative affect and attitudes towards the initial group, new group and an outgroup. Results showed that rejected compared with accepted children had a negative attitude towards the initial group, but that both were equally positive towards their new group. In addition, whereas accepted participants were less positive towards the outgroup, rejected participants displayed outgroup prejudice. Results also revealed main effects on group attitudes of participants' age and group norms, as well as a peer status × status reason interaction, but participants' negative affect was only affected by their age. The basis of the effect of peer group rejection on outgroup prejudice is discussed.

Relations Between High and Low Power Groups: The Importance of Legitimacy

Using a social identity perspective, two experiments examined the effects of power and the legitimacy of power differentials on intergroup bias. In Experiment 1, 125 math-science students were led to believe that they had high or low representation in a university decision-making body relative to social-science students and that this power position was either legitimate or illegitimate. Power did not have an independent effect on bias; rather, members of both high and low power groups showed more bias when the power hierarchy was illegitimate than when it was legitimate. This effect was replicated in Experiment 2 ( N = 105). In addition, Experiment 2 showed that groups located within an unfair power hierarchy expected the superordinate power body to be more discriminatory than did those who had legitimately high or low power. The results are discussed in terms of their implications for group relations.

The role of professional and team commitment in nurse-physician collaboration: A dual identity model perspective

Nurse-physician collaboration involves healthcare operators from different professions working together. The dual identity model predicts that nurse-physician interprofessional collaboration could improve if these operators feel they belong to both their professional category and care unit. This study tested this prediction by analyzing the effect of professional and team commitments on interprofessional collaboration between nurses and physicians in a hospital based in Northern Italy. A cross-section questionnaire survey was administered to 270 nurses and 95 physicians. Results indicate that interprofessional collaboration is positively affected by team commitment, while professional commitment had no effect. In accordance with the dual identity model, results indicate that interprofessional collaboration is higher when: (i) both professional and team commitment is high, and (ii) when team commitment is high and professional commitment is low. These results support dual identity model predictions and suggest that interprofessional collaboration can be increased by bolstering both team and professional commitment of nurses and physicians.

Only human: hostile human norms can reduce legitimization of intergroup discrimination by perpetrators of historical atrocities

We investigated the effects of salient shared humanity with a benevolent or hostile human norm on perpetrators of historical atrocities. Our findings suggest that a focus on benevolent superordinate humanity enables perpetrators to legitimize intergroup discrimination and preserve existing negative attitudes towards victims. In Expt 1 (N=135), salient shared humanity with a human norm of benevolence and kindness preserved the perceived legitimacy of intergroup inequality, while exposure to a hostile norm of human nature reduced perceived legitimacy. Expt 2 (N=51) replicated the association between exposure to a hostile human norm and reduced legitimization when perpetrator intentions were unambiguously negative. In contrast, when perpetrator intentions were ambiguous, a hostile human norm had no effect on perceived legitimacy. Our findings qualify previous research, and demonstrate that the effects of emphasizing shared humanity are not equivalent or universally positive for perpetrators and victims.

Forgiveness and collective guilt assignment to historical perpetrator groups depend on level of social category inclusiveness

The authors examined how categorization influences victimized group members' responses to contemporary members of a historical perpetrator group. Specifically, the authors tested whether increasing category inclusiveness--from the intergroup level to the maximally inclusive human level--leads to greater forgiveness of a historical perpetrator group and decreased collective guilt assignment for its harmdoing. Among Jewish North Americans (Experiments 1, 2, and 4) and Native Canadians (Experiment 3) human-level categorization resulted in more positive responses toward Germans and White Canadians, respectively, by decreasing the uniqueness of their past harmful actions toward the in-group. Increasing the inclusiveness of categorization led to greater forgiveness and lessened expectations that former out-group members should experience collective guilt compared with when categorization was at the intergroup level. Discussion focuses on obstacles that are likely to be encountered on the road to reconciliation between groups that have a history of conflictual relations.

Intergroup Distinctiveness and Differentiation: A Meta-Analytic Integration

The authors examined the relation between perceptions of intergroup distinctiveness and intergroup differentiation in a meta-analysis. They tested the social identity theory prediction that low intergroup distinctiveness underlies differentiation (the "reactive distinctiveness" hypothesis) for effects on behavioral and judgmental differentiation. In addition, they examined the moderating power of 4 variables that H. Tajfel and J. C. Turner (1979) predicted would influence differentiation (group identification, relevance of the dimension of comparison, relevance of the outgroup. and nature of intergroup relations). Analysis of 60 tests revealed that the overall effect of distinctiveness on differentiation was not significantly different from 0, but reactive distinctiveness was found on behavioral differentiation measures, whereas reflective distinctiveness was found on judgmental differentiation measures. Only group identification was a reliable moderator. High identifiers showed reactive distinctiveness, whereas low identifiers showed reflective distinctiveness.

Malicious pleasure: schadenfreude at the suffering of another group

Two studies examined intergroup schadenfreude--malicious pleasure at an out-group's misfortune. Study 1 showed that schadenfreude regarding a German loss in soccer was increased by interest in soccer and threats of Dutch inferiority. The effect of inferiority threat was especially strong for participants less interested in soccer; the more interested showed relatively high schadenfreude. Study 2 replicated these effects by showing a similar pattern of schadenfreude regarding losses by Germany and Italy in another setting. However, schadenfreude toward legitimately superior Italy was lower when a norm of honest and direct expression was made salient to participants lower in soccer interest. These results establish schadenfreude as an emotion that is moderated by the salient dimensions of particular intergroup relations.