INGROUP IDENTIFICATION AND INGROUP BIAS: THE ROLE OF GROUP NORM

Abstract

The aim of this research was to examine the moderating role of ingroup norm on the association between ingroup identification on ingroup bias. Relatedly, we also examined whether this association varied depending on the group formation. To do this, we conducted three experimental studies to that end. Study 1 (N = 103) focused on real groups (Fenerbahçe and Galatasaray Football Club fans), where we manipulated ingroup norm and then measured ingroup identification. Specifically, in order to manipulate ingroup norm, participants were randomly assigned to an “egalitarian” norm condition, “favoritism” norm condition or control group. Ingroup bias was operationalized through a difference score in allocating screen time for a sports program on TV, allocating page areas in sports newspapers, and positive evaluations through adjective ratings. Results showed that higher identification was associated with stronger ingroup bias. However, the moderating effect of ingroup norm (egalitarianism vs. favoritism) on the relationship between ingroup identification and ingroup bias was not observed. Study 2 and Study 3employed minimal groups created in the lab setting. In Study 2 (N = 122), two groups labeled “analytical” and “holistic” thinkers were formed based on false feedback (i.e., participants were told that their answers to math problems would be categorized based on an algorithm), and then ingroup norm was manipulated as the same way in the first study (egalitarianism vs. favoritism). In addition, ingroup identification was manipulated, rather than being merely measured. In Study 3, (N = 94) ingroup identification was manipulated with a similar procedure used in Study 2; but this time, the moderating effect of group formation (competitive vs. cooperative groups), rather than group norm, was investigated. In Studies 2 and 3, no main effects of ingroup identification, ingroup norm, or group formation on ingroup bias were obtained. The interaction effects of identification with ingroup norm or formation were not statistically significant either. These three experimental studies, showed that, contrary to the literature, intergroup members did not exhibit distributional ingroup bias based on a type of group norms or group formations. The findings were discussed in the context of literature, methodological differences, and the problem of reproducibility in social psychology.

Keywords

• Identification
• Social identity
• Ingroup norm
• Ingroup favoritism
• Group formation

İÇ GRUP ÖZDEŞİMİ VE İÇ GRUP YANLILIĞI: GRUP NORMLARININ ROLÜ

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın amacı iç grup özdeşiminin iç grup yanlılığı üzerindeki etkisinde iç grup normunun düzenleyici etkisini incelemektir. Bu amaç doğrultusunda üç deneysel çalışma yürütülmüştür. İlk çalışmada, gerçek grup üyelerinin iç grup özdeşimleri ölçülmüş ve iç grup normları eşitlikçilik, kayırmacılık veya kontrol grubu olacak şekilde değişimlenmiştir. İç grup yanlılığı, iç grup ve dış grup arasında spor programı süresi paylaştırma, spor gazetesi sayfası paylaştırma ve olumlu özelliklerle değerlendirme ölçümlerindeki iç grup lehine fark olarak işlevselleştirilmiştir. Sonuçlar, iç grup özdeşimi arttıkça iç grup yanlılığının da arttığını, ancak iç grup özdeşimi ve iç grup yanlılığı arasındaki ilişkide grup normunun düzenleyici etkisinin olmadığını göstermiştir. Diğer iki çalışmada laboratuvarda oluşturulmuş minimal gruplar kullanılmıştır. İkinci çalışmada bir matematik görevinden sonra katılımcılara seçkisiz olarak analitik veya bütüncül düşünme-karar verme stiline sahip oldukları şeklinde sahte bir geribildirim verilerek iki grup oluşturulmuş ve ilk çalışmadaki gibi norm ataması yapılmıştır. Ayrıca iç grup özdeşimi de ölçülmek yerine yüksek ve düşük seviyelerde olacak şekilde değişimlenmiştir. Üçüncü çalışmada ise iç grup özdeşimi, yine ikinci deneysel çalışmadakine benzer bir yöntem ile değişimlenmiş; ancak bu kez düzenleyicilik etkisi grup normunun bir öncülü olarak değerlendirilen iç grup biçimlenmesi bağlamında araştırılmıştır. İkinci ve üçüncü çalışmada özdeşimin, grup normunun ya da biçimlenmesinin iç grup yanlılığı üzerinde temel etkisi gözlenmemiştir. Grup özdeşiminin, grup normuyla veya grup biçimlemesiyle etkileşimi de istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bulunmamıştır. Psikoloji öğrencisi olmayan toplumun farklı kesimlerinden katılımcıları örnekleyen bu üç çalışma, alanyazının aksine gruplar arası üyelerin grup normlarına veya biçimlenmelerine bağlı olarak bölüştürme davranışı sergilemediğini göstermektedir. Bulgular, metodolojik farklılıklar ve sosyal psikolojideki tekrarlanabilirlik sorunu bağlamında tartışılmıştır.

Keywords

• Özdeşim
• Sosyal kimlik
• İç grup normu
• İç grup yanlılığı
• Grup biçimlenmesi

References

1. Aberson, C. L., Healy M. R. ve Romero V. L. (2000). Ingroup bias and self-esteem: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(2), 157-173. doi: 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0402_04
2. Abrams, D., Rutland, A., Pelletier, J. ve Ferrell, J. M. (2009). Children’s group nous: Understanding and applying peer exclusion within and between groups. Child Development, 80(1), 224-243. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01256.x
3. Balaban, Ç. D. (2013). The roles of intergroup threat, social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism in predicting Turks' prejudice toward Kurds (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
4. Billig, M. ve Tajfel, H. (1973). Social categorization and similarity in intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 3(1), 27-52. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420030103
5. Bir hafta önce dönmüştü, Rasim Ozan Kütahyalı Beyaz TV’den yeniden kovuldu. (2019 Ağustos). Sözcü Gazetesi. https://www.sozcu.com.tr/hayatim/yasam-haberleri/bir-hafta-once-donmustu-rasim-ozan-kutahyali-beyaz-tvden-yeniden-kovuldu/ bağlantısından erişilmiştir.
6. Blader, S. L. (2007). What determines people’s fairness judgments? Identification and outcomes influence procedural justice evaluations under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(6), 986-994. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2006.10.022
7. Bonebright, D. A. (2010). 40 years of storming: a historical review of Tuckman's model of small group development. Human Resource Development International, 13(1), 111-120. doi: 10.1080/13678861003589099
8. Brewer, K. (2005). The use of volunteers in psychological research, Psychology Information for Students, 3, 8-11.

9. Brewer, M. B. (2009). Motivations underlying ingroup identification: Optimal distinctiveness and beyond. S. Otten, K. Sassenber ve T. Kessler (Edl.), Intergroup relations the role of motivation and emotion (ss. 21-40) içinde. NY: Taylor & Francis Group Psychology Press.
10. Brown, R. (2000a). Social identity theory: Past achievements, current problems and future challenges. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30(6), 745-778. doi: 10.1002/1099-0992(200011/12)30:6<745::AID-EJSP24>3.0.CO;2-O
11. Brown, R. (2000b). Group processes 2nd edition: Dynamics within and between groups. Oxford, England: Blackwell Science.
12. Brown, R., ve Pehrson, S. (2019). Group processes: Dynamics within and between groups. John Wiley & Sons.
13. Castano, E., Yzerbyt, V., Paladino, M. P. ve Sacchi, S. (2002). I belong, therefore, I exist: Ingroup identification, ingroup entitativity, and ingroup bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(2), 135-143. doi: 10.1177/0146167202282001
14. Cingöz- Ulu, B., ve Lalonde, R. N. (2008, Temmuz). Ingroup identification and intergroup differentation: A meta-analytic review. Sözlü sunum, 7. Biennial SPSSI Conference, Chicago, USA.
15. Cohen, J. (1978). Conformity and norm formation in small groups. Pacific Sociological Review, 21(4), 441-466. doi: 10.2307/1388695
16. Cooley, S., ve Killen, M. (2015). Children’s evaluations of resource allocation in the context of group norms. Developmental Psychology, 51(4), 554–563. doi: 10.1037/a0038796
17. Cooper, J., Kelly, K. A. ve Weaver, K. (2001). Attitudes, norms, and social groups. M. A. Hogg ve S. Tindale (Edl.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group processes (ss. 259-28) içinde. Oxford, England: Blackwell Science.
18. Crisp, R. J., ve Beck, S. R. (2005). Reducing intergroup bias: The moderating role of ingroup identification. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 8(2), 173–185. doi: 10.1177/1368430205051066
19. Crocker, J., ve Luhtanen, R. (1990). Collective self-esteem and ingroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(1), 60–67. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.58.1.60
20. Çoksan, S. (2016). Sosyal kimlik özdeşimi ve iç grup normunun iç grup yanlılığı ile ilişkisi (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Mersin Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Mersin.
21. Çoksan, S. ve Cingöz-Ulu, B. (2021). Group norms moderate the effect of identification on ingroup bias. Current Psychology. doi: 10.1007/s12144-021-02091-x
22. De Vries, R. E. (2003). Self, in‐group, and out‐group evaluation: Bond or breach? European Journal of Social Psychology, 33(5), 609-621. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.173
23. Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31(3), 137–149. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1975.tb01000.x
24. Deutsch, M. (1985). Distributive justice: A social-psychological perspective. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
25. Doosje, B., Ellemers, N., ve Spears, R. (1995). Perceived intragroup variability as a function of group status and identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31(5), 410-436. doi: 10.1006/jesp.1995.1018
26. Duckitt, J. ve Mphuthing, T. (1998). Group identification and intergroup attitudes: A longitudinal analysis in South Africa. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 80-85. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.80
27. Ellemers, N. (2010). Social identity theory. J. M Levine ve M. A. Hogg (Edl.), Encyclopedia of group processes and intergroup relations (Cilt 2, ss. 797-207). Sage Publication.
28. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., ve Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149-1160. doi: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
29. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., ve Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175-191. doi: 10.3758/bf03193146
30. Finke, R. A. (1995). Creative insight and preinventive forms. R. J. Sternberg ve J. E. Davidson (Edl.), The nature of insight (ss. 255-280) içinde. Cambridge, MA, US: The MIT Press.
31. Foot, H., ve Sanford, A. (2004). The use and abuse of student participants. The Psychologist, 17(5), 256–259.
32. Hande Sarıoğlu’nun Emre Belozoğlu sorusu Fatih Altaylı’yı kzıdırdı, yayını terk etti. (2019, Aralık). Sözcü Gazetesi. https://skor.sozcu.com.tr/2019/12/03/hande-sarioglunun-emre-belozoglu-sorusu-fatih-altayliyi-kizdirdi-yayini-terk-etti-1420295/ bağlantısından erişilmiştir.
33. Hankins, M. (2013, Nisan 13). Still not significant [Blog yazısı]. https://mchankins.wordpress.com/2013/04/21/still-not-significant-2/ bağlantısından erişilmiştir.
34. Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford publications.
35. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., ve Norenzayan, A. (2010). Most people are not WEIRD. Nature, 466(7302), 29-29. doi: 10.1038/466029a
36. Hinkle, S. ve Brown, R. J. (1990). Intergroup comparisons and social identity: Some links and lacunae. D. Abrams ve M. A. Hogg (Edl.), Social identity theory: Constructive and critical advances içinde (ss. 48-70). New York: Harvester-Wheatsheaf Publishing.
37. Hogg, M. A. ve Abrams, D. (1996). Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes. Routledge.
38. Jetten, J., Spears, R. ve Manstead, A. S. (1996). Intergroup norms and intergroup discrimination: Distinctive self-categorization and social identity effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(6), 1222-1233. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.6.1222
39. Jetten, J., Spears, R. ve Manstead, A. S. (1997). Strength of identification and intergroup differentiation: The influence of group norms. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27(5), 603-609. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199709/10)27:5<603::AID-EJSP816>3.0.CO;2-B
40. Jetten, J.,Spears, R. ve Postmes, T. (2004). Intergroup distinctiveness and differentiation: A meta-analytic integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(6),862-879. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.6.862
41. Kawakami, K. ve Dion, K. L. (1995). Social identity and affect as determinants of collective action: Toward an integration of relative deprivation and social identity theories. Theory & Psychology, 5(4), 551-577. doi:10.1177/0959354395054005
42. Kimmel, A. J. (1996). Ethical issues in behavioral research: A survey. Blackwell Publishing.
43. Leach, C. W., Van Zomeren, M., Zebel, S., Vliek, M. L., Pennekamp, S. F., Doosje, B., ... ve Spears, R. (2008). Group-level self-definition and self-investment: a hierarchical (multicomponent) model of in-group identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 144-165. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.144
44. Levin, S., ve Sidanius, J. (1999). Social dominance and social identity in the United States and Israel: Ingroup favoritism or outgroup derogation? Political Psychology, 20(1), 99–126. doi: 10.1111/0162-895X.00138
45. Masson, T., Jugert, P., ve Fritsche, I. (2016). Collective self-fulfilling prophecies: Group identification biases perceptions of environmental group norms among high identifiers. Social Influence, 11(3), 185–198. doi: 10.1080/15534510.2016.1216890
46. McGarty, C. (2001). Social Identity Theory does not maintain that identification produces bias, and Self‐Categorization Theory does not maintain that salience is identification: Two comments on Mummendey, Klink and Brown. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(2), 173-176. doi:10.1348/014466601164777
47. Moreland, R. L. (1987). The formation of small groups. C. Hendrick (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology, Vol. 8. Group processes içinde (pp. 80-110). Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.
48. Moscovici, S. (1974). Social influence I: Conformity and social control. C. Nemeth (Ed.), Social psychology: Classic and contemporary integrations içinde (ss. 179-216). US: Rand McNally.
49. Mummendey, A., Klink, A. ve Brown, R. (2001). Nationalism and patriotism: National identification and out‐group rejection. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(2), 159-172. doi:10.1348/014466601164740
50. Nadler, A., Harpaz-Gorodeisky, G. ve Ben-David, Y. (2009). Defensive helping: Threat to group identity, ingroup identification, status stability, and common group identity as determinants of intergroup help-giving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(5), 823-834. doi:10.1037/a0015968
51. Noel, J. G., Wann, D. L., ve Branscombe, N. R. (1995). Peripheral ingroup membership status and public negativity toward outgroups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(1), 127–137. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.68.1.127
52. Olsson-Collentine, A., van Assen, M. A., ve Hartgerink, C. H. (2019). The prevalence of marginally significant results in psychology over time. Psychological Science, 30(4), 576-586. doi:10.1177/0956797619830326
53. Open Science Collaboration (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716-2- aac4716-8. doi:10.1126/science.aac4716.
54. Perreault, S., ve Bourhis, R. Y. (1999). Ethnocentrism, social identification, and discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(1), 92-103. doi: 10.1177/0146167299025001008
55. Pettigrew, T. F. (1958). Personality and sociocultural factors in intergroup attitudes: A cross-national comparison. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2(1), 29-42.
56. Rad, M. S., Martingano, A. J., ve Ginges, J. (2018). Toward a psychology of Homo sapiens: Making psychological science more representative of the human population. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(45), 11401-11405. doi:10.1073/pnas.1721165115
57. Rasim Ozan Kütahyalı’dan Boşnaklara hakaret eden sözleri hakkında yeni açıklama. (2019, Ağustos). Birgün Gazetesi. https://www.birgun.net/haber/rasim-ozan-kutahyali-dan-bosnaklara-hakaret-eden-sozleri-hakkinda-yeni-aciklama-265257 bağlantısından erişilmiştir.
58. Royston, P., Altman, D. G., ve Sauerbrei, W. (2006). Dichotomizing continuous predictors in multiple regression: A bad idea. Statistics in Medicine, 25(1), 127-141. doi:10.1002/sim.2331
59. Rubin, M. ve Hewstone, M. (1998). Social identity theory's self-esteem hypothesis: A review and some suggestions for clarification. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(1), 40-62. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0201_3
60. Rutland, A., Hitti, A., Mulvey, K. L., Abrams, D. ve Killen, M. (2015). When does the ingroup like the out-group? Bias among children as a function of group norms. Psychological Science, 26(6), 834-842. doi: 10.1177/0956797615572758
61. Sedikides, C. ve Strube, M. J. (1997). Self-evaluation: To thine own self be good, to thine own self be sure, to thine own self be true, and to thine own self be better. M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology volume 29 içinde (ss. 209-269). NY: Academic Press.
62. Setenay Cankat Göktuğhan Argın’ı yayından kovdu. (2019, Mart). Yeniçağ Gazetesi. https://www.yenicaggazetesi.com.tr/setenay-cankat-goktughan-argini-yayindan-kovdu-268747h.htm bağlantısından erişilmiştir.
63. Shaw, M. E. (1981). Group dynamics: The dynamics of small group behavior. NY: McGrew-Hill Publishing.
64. Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology of social norms. Oxford, England: Harper.
65. Sherif, M. (1966). In common predicament: Social psychology of intergroup conflict and cooperation. Houghton Mifflin.
66. Spears, R., Doosje, B. ve Ellemers, N. (1999). Commitment and the context of social perception. N. Ellemers, R. Spears ve B. Doosje (Edl.), Social identity içinde (ss. 59-94). Oxford, England: Blackwell Science.
67. Stroebe, K., Lodewijkx, H. F. M., ve Spears, R. (2005). Do unto others as they do unto you: Reciprocity and social identification as determinants of ingroup favoritism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(6), 831–845. doi: 10.1177/0146167204271659
68. Struch, N. ve Schwartz, S. H. (1989). Intergroup aggression: Its predictors and distinctness from in-group bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(3), 364-373. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.56.3.364
69. Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 223(5), 96-102.
70. Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. UK: Cambridge University Press.
71. Tajfel, H. ve Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. W. G. Austin ve S. Worchel (Edl.), The social psychology of intergroup relations içinde (ss. 33-57). Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole.
72. Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., ve Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(2), 149-178. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420010202
73. Taylor, D. A., & Moriarty, B. F. (1987). Ingroup bias as a function of competition and race. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 31(1), 192-199. doi: 10.1177/0022002787031001011
74. Terry, D. J. ve Hogg, M. A. (1996). Group norms and the attitude-behavior relationship: A role for group identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(8), 776-793. doi:10.1177/0146167296228002
75. Thalheimer, W., ve Cook, S. (2002). How to calculate effect sizes from published research articles: A simplified methodology. http://work-learning.com/effect_sizes.htm bağlantısından erişilmiştir.
76. Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384–399. Doi: 10.1037/h0022100
77. Tuckman, B. W. ve Jensen, M. A. C. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group & Organization Studies, 2(4), 419-427. doi: 10.1177/105960117700200404
78. Turner, J. C. (1975). Social comparison and social identity: Some prospects for intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 5(1), 1-34. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420050102
79. Turner, J. C. (1991). Mapping social psychology series. Social influence. Belmont, CA, US: Thomson Brooks/Cole Publishing.
80. Turner, J. C. (1999). Some current issues in research on social identity and self categorization theories. N. Ellemers, R. Spears ve B. Doosje (Edl.), Social identity içinde (ss. 6-35). Oxford, England: Blackwell Science. Valentine, E. R. (2013). Conceptual issues in psychology. Routledge Publication.
81. van Leeuwen, E., van Knippenberg, D. ve Ellemers, N. (2003). Continuing and changing group identities: The effects of merging on social identification and ingroup bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(6), 679-690. doi:10.1177/0146167203029006001
82. Verkuyten, M. ve Hagendoorn, L. (1998). Prejudice and self-categorization: The variable role of authoritarianism and in-group stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(1), 99-110. doi:10.1177/0146167298241008
83. Wilder, D. A., ve Shapiro, P. N. (1984). Role of out-group cues in determining social identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(2), 342-348. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.47.2.342
84. Worchel, S. (1998). A developmental view of the search for group identity. S. Worchel, J. F. Morales, D. Paez, ve J. Deschamps (Edl.), Social identity: International perspectives içinde (ss. 53-74). Sage Publications.