Does the union always make the force? Group status and recategorization influence the perceived physical formidability of potential coalition groups

Coalitions among individuals and between groups, which have had critical evolutionary benefits for humans, play an important role in contemporary life. One key element of the processes of assessing potential allies is how they may contribute to the perceived physical formidability - fighting ability or the capacity to inflict costs on others - of the alliance. In three studies, focused for the first time on intergroup coalitions, we investigated how qualities of the groups such as status (social prestige) and the relationship between them influence the perceived physical formidability of a coalition (i.e., European Union, EU). Study 1 found that the inclusion of a group with higher or similar (but not lower) status increased the perceived formidability of the EU. Studies 2 and 3 showed that learning that ingroup members recategorized a low-status group within a common-group identity increased the perceived formidability of the EU including that group, compared with the conditions in which either outgroup members recategorized or no information was provided. Study 3 also revealed mediation by fusion - a visceral connection - with outgroup members, which has been relatively unexplored. Taken together, these studies reveal that both, status and social identity processes, may significantly affect the estimations of coalitional formidability.

Social networks are shaped by culturally contingent assessments of social competence

Cultural outsiders, like immigrants or international students, often struggle to make friends. We propose that one barrier to social connection is not knowing what it means to be socially competent in the host culture. First-year students at a U.S. business school (N = 1328) completed a social network survey and rated their own social competence and that of several peers. International students were rated by peers as less socially competent than U.S. students, especially if they were from nations more culturally dissimilar to the U.S. International students' self-reported competence ratings were uncorrelated with peers' judgments. Social network analysis revealed international students were less central to their peer networks than U.S. students, although this gap was reduced if peers evaluated them as socially competent. Peer-reported competence mediated the effects of international student status on social network centrality. Since learning local norms takes time, we suggest inclusivity will require host communities to define social competence more broadly.

Infants distinguish between leaders and bullies

We examined whether 21-month-old infants could distinguish between two broad types of social power: respect-based power exerted by a leader (who might be an authority figure with legitimate power, a prestigious individual with merited power, or some combination thereof) and fear-based power exerted by a bully. Infants first saw three protagonists interact with a character who was either a leader (leader condition) or a bully (bully condition). Next, the character gave an order to the protagonists, who initially obeyed; the character then left the scene, and the protagonists either continued to obey (obey event) or no longer did so (disobey event). Infants in the leader condition looked significantly longer at the disobey than at the obey event, suggesting that they expected the protagonists to continue to obey the leader in her absence. In contrast, infants in the bully condition looked equally at the two events, suggesting that they viewed both outcomes as plausible: The protagonists might continue to obey the absent bully to prevent further harm, or they might disobey her because her power over them weakened in her absence. Additional results supported these interpretations: Infants expected obedience when the bully remained in the scene and could harm the protagonists if defied, but they expected disobedience when the order was given by a character with little or no power over the protagonists. Together, these results indicate that by 21 months of age, infants already hold different expectations for subordinates' responses to individuals with respect-based as opposed to fear-based power.

The Out-Group Homogeneity Effect Across Development: A Cross-Cultural Investigation

The present studies investigated the out-group homogeneity effect in 5- and 8-year-old Israeli and German children (n = 150) and adults (n = 96). Participants were asked to infer whether a given property (either biological or psychological) was true of an entire group-either the participants' in-group ("Jews" or "Germans") or their out-group ("Arabs" or "Turks"). To that end, participants had to select either a homogenous or a heterogeneous sample of group members. It was found that across ages and countries, participants selected heterogeneous samples less often when inferring the biological properties of out-compared to in-group members. No effect was found regarding psychological properties. These findings have important implications for our understanding of the origins of intergroup bias.

Measuring the Measures

We meta-analytically synthesized the intergroup variability literature (177 effect sizes, from 173 independent samples, and 12,078 participants) to test the potential moderating effect of 11 measures of perceived variability. Aggregating across the measures, we detected a small but reliable tendency to perceive more variability among ingroup than outgroup members and such outgroup homogeneity was stronger among non-minimal than minimal groups. Furthermore, analyses that distinguished among the 11 measures revealed systematic discrepancies among the patterns of perception detected by those measures. Those systematic discrepancies further varied across social contexts defined by relative group status, with some measures yielding ingroup homogeneity and others outgroup homogeneity. We discuss the possibility that the measures of variability require different mental activities that interact with contextually induced cognitive and motivational processes to yield disparate intergroup perceptions.

An Examination of Interracial Contact:The Influence of Cross-Race Interpersonal Efficacy and Affect Regulation

The ability of employees to interact cooperatively and collaboratively is the fulcrum of competitive advantage for organizations operating in pluralistic environments. Contact theory suggests several conditions under which effective interpersonal relationships across racial, ethnic, and cultural groups may occur. Research examining the contact hypothesis has been mixed. The explanation of this inconsistency in the research generally centers on procedural rather than cognitive aspects of the interactions. This article discusses the contact hypothesis with respect to social cognitive functioning of interaction participants. We propose that positive outcomes from application of the contact hypothesis may be influenced by the individual employees' level of cross-race interpersonal efficacy and affect regulation. An investigation of the influence of cross-race interpersonal efficacy and affect regulation may lead to a more developed theoretical understanding of the variance currently associated with the application of the contact hypothesis.

Group Status Drives Majority and Minority Integration Preferences

This research examined preferences for national- and campus-level assimilative and pluralistic policies among Black and White students under different contexts, as majority- and minority-group members. We targeted attitudes at two universities, one where 85% of the student body is White, and another where 76% of students are Black. The results revealed that when a group constituted the majority, its members generally preferred assimilationist policies, and when a group constituted the minority, its members generally preferred pluralistic policies. The results support a functional perspective: Both majority and minority groups seek to protect and enhance their collective identities.

Perceptions of Gender Group Variability in Majority and Minority Contexts

Two field studies demonstrated that majority and minority size moderate perceived group variability. In Study 1 we found an outgroup homogeneity (OH) effect for female nurses in the majority, but an ingroup homogeneity (IH) effect for a token minority of male nurses. In Study 2 we found similar effects in a different setting – an OH effect for policemen in the majority and an IH effect for policewomen in the minority. Although measures of visibility, status, and, especially, familiarity tended to show the same pattern as perceived variability, there was no evidence that they mediated perceived dispersion. Results are discussed in terms of group size, rather than gender, being moderators of perceived variability, and with reference to Kanter’s (1977a , 1977b ) theory of group proportions.

Power and threat in intergroup conflict

We propose that in intergroup conflict threat content is important in understanding the reactions of those who experience threats the most: the powerless. Studies 1 and 2 show that powerless groups experience more threat than powerful groups, resulting in the experience of both more anger and fear. Threat content determines which emotions elicit behavior that adequately deals with the situation. When confronted with a physically threatening outgroup, fear elicits an avoidance reaction in powerless groups (Study 1). When valuable resources are threatened, anger makes powerless group members want to confront the outgroup, at least when they strongly identify with their group (Study 2). Study 3 replicates the finding that threat content determines which emotions are functional in directing behavior.

Majority, Minority, and Parity: Effects of Gender and Group Size on Perceived Group Variability

We investigated the effects of gender and group size on perceptions of group variability, using groups of students taking different majors that varied in the proportion of men and women (female-majority, parity, and male-majority). We found that both group size and gender had consistent effects on perceived out-group variability, even when potentially confounded alternative explanations were assessed. Men showed a stronger out-group homogeneity effect than women, except when women were in the majority (Studies One and Two), and women showed no in-group homogeneity effect. There was an association between out-group homogeneity and the tendency to generate more subgroups for the in-group than out-group (Study Two), but perceived variability was not associated with familiarity, distinctiveness, perceived group size, or perceived group status. These consistent effects qualify the conclusions of prior research in important ways, and cannot be explained in terms of differences in stereotype accuracy (Study Three), or a confound between the gender majority of a major and its perceived status (Study Four). We discuss our findings in terms of theoretical explanations for gender and size effects on out-group homogeneity, and methodological considerations.