Search

Two experiments examined the impact of anonymity and accountability on the expression of group-mediated attitude-behaviour consistency. In Study 1, low and high identifiers (N = 106) were exposed to an attitude-congruent norm and provided information about their intentions under anonymous and in-group accountable conditions. In Study 2, salience of identity was manipulated, and participants (N = 185) were exposed to either an attitude-congruent or an attitude-incongruent norm, and provided information on their intentions and behaviour under anonymous and in-group accountable conditions. In both studies, accountability elicited group-normative attitudes and behaviour among individuals for whom the group was not a salient basis for self-definition. When the group was a salient basis for self-definition, the expression of attitude-consistent intentions and behaviour was greater in anonymous conditions. It is suggested that strategic effects, such as those that occur in the presence of an in-group audience, influence displays of group-normative attitude–behaviour consistency. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An impostor is defined as somebody who publicly lays claim to an identity while simultaneously disguising their failure to fulfill key criteria for group membership. The current study aimed to identify why minority group members feel negatively toward impostors. In two experiments, gay participants evaluated a person who claimed to be either gay or straight. In half of the conditions the target's claims for identity were consistent with their behavior, and in the other half the target's claims for identity were inconsistent with their behavior (impostors). Participants perceived a straight target that claimed to be gay to be doing more damage to the group than a consistent straight target. This effect was mediated by ratings of the extent to which the target was threatening the distinctiveness of gay identity. Furthermore, a gay target who claimed to be straight was seen to be less likeable and was seen to be doing more damage to the group than a consistent gay target, effects that were mediated by the extent to which the target was perceived to feel shame about their group identity. Implications of the results for our understanding of impostorism are discussed. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Integrated Threat Theory (ITT) (Stephan & Stephan, 1993, 1996) describes four types of threats as mediators in the relation between antecedent factors (previous intergroup conflict, intergroup contact, status inequalities, in-group identification, knowledge about the out-group, and intergroup contact) and prejudice. The four mediating types of threats, which influence prejudice according to ITT are: intergroup anxiety, negative stereotyping, realistic and symbolic threats. In this study, the ITT model was tested using structural equation modeling on data collected in sample of 187 Dutch employees. Two alternative explanatory models are proposed in which, first intergroup anxiety and then negative stereotyping mediate the relation between the other ITT threats and prejudice. The data show a good fit with the model in which negative stereotypes are considered as mediator variable. The implications of these findings for ITT are discussed in the context of recent theoretical developments in the study of stereotypes and prejudice. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An experiment examined the effects of role ambiguity and relative group status in an intergroup situation where a superordinate goal was salient. One-hundred-and- fifty-six subjects in groups of three undertook a cooperative task under conditions where the groups' roles were clearly Different, Similar, or not allocated (Control). In addition, the groups' perceived competence at the task was either equally High, equally Low, or unequal. Financial rewards were contingent on successful completion of the joint task. Two contrasting hypotheses were derived from Social Identity Theory: one (H1) predicted most favourable intergroup attitudes in the Control condition where lack of any clear differentiation in group roles might facilitate a superordinate identification. In contrast, (H2) predicted least favourable attitudes in this condition on tile grounds that groups lacked a distinctive identity. Support for the second hypothesis was found since friendliness towards the outgroup decreased with increasing role ambiguity. The status variable also had consistent effects. As predicted, mutual evaluations fended to reflect the consensually agreed status differences: least bias being shown towards high status outgroups, most kv high status in groups. Task performance was also affected by role ambiguity. Judges' ratings of the group products were found to be more favourable as role ambiguity increased, in contrast to the friendliness data. Tire implications of these findings for Social Identity Theory, the Contact Hypothesis, and theories of group performance are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]