Content uploaded by B. Ann Bettencourt
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by B. Ann Bettencourt on Feb 25, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Cooperative Interaction and Intergroup Bias: Effects of Numerical Representation and Cross-Cut Role Assignment
Abstract
This study investigates whether the greater in-group favoritism typically expressed by numerical minorities could be minimized by cross-cutting role assignment to the tasks in a cooperative setting. Study 1 manipulated the numerical representation of two groups and role assignment to a team task. The results showed that cross-cut role assignment decreased the in-group bias of both minority and majority groups, compared to convergent role assignment. Study 2 further examined the benefits of cross-cut assignment while controlling interaction among in-group and out-group members. The outcomes of Study 2 replicated those of Study 1 and showed that even without prior interaction during the cross-cut task, both minorities and majorities were less biased when role assignments cross-cut category membership. Moreover, the results showed that whereas both social category salience and identification were affected by role assignment, only identification mediated the effect of role assignment on in-group bias.
... Equality norms have also been defined in the throughput or output of deliberation (Albrecht, 2006;Besley & McComas, 2005;Zhang, 2015). To quantify the degree of equality on the communicative throughput level, Albrecht (2006) assessed the relative (in)equality of speech distribution in a debate ("participant equality" in his terms) using the Gini coefficient. ...
... To quantify the degree of equality on the communicative throughput level, Albrecht (2006) assessed the relative (in)equality of speech distribution in a debate ("participant equality" in his terms) using the Gini coefficient. When equality is conceptualized as the expected output of deliberation, it has been measured with participants' feeling that the interaction went reciprocal, fair, and legitimate (Besley & McComas, 2005;Zhang, 2015). For instance, Besley and McComas (2005) point out the importance of perceived fairness and legitimacy in heightening citizens' level of satisfaction with public engagement. ...
... When equality is conceptualized as the expected output of deliberation, it has been measured with participants' feeling that the interaction went reciprocal, fair, and legitimate (Besley & McComas, 2005;Zhang, 2015). For instance, Besley and McComas (2005) point out the importance of perceived fairness and legitimacy in heightening citizens' level of satisfaction with public engagement. Similarly, Zhang (2015) finds that perceived procedural fairness is a significant predictor of enjoyment and intentions for future participation in deliberation events. ...
Contrary to the normative emphasis on the rule of equality in the deliberation literature, little has been known about empirical consequences of the rule of equality, especially when applied in online discussions where political disagreement is prevalent. Given that hostile gender-related discussions have been noticeably increasing in South Korea, we investigated whether applying deliberative rules, especially cross-cutting exposure and equality, can improve gender-issue discussion quality and foster mutual understanding and healthy political engagement. For this purpose, we designed an online experiment involving moderated deliberations on the abolition of the national abortion ban via KakaoTalk, the most popular messenger platform in South Korea. The deliberative qualities of online discussions in terms of rationality and civility were assessed in a more objective and unobtrusive way: a content analysis of actual conversation transcripts. Participatory intention for gender issue-related activities and civic attitudes were also measured. Results indicate the equality rule can help to promote normatively desirable outcomes in discussions with disagreeing others while the positive effects of cross-cutting exposure were found limited. When combined with the rule of equality, hearing the other side meaningfully enhanced the deliberative qualities and participatory intentions of discussants.
... For example, if a majority opinion exists, opinions will tend to move toward that preexisting majority opinion (Schkade, Sunstein, & Kahneman, 2000). But other aspects of the discussion, like the degree to which group norms place value on original or innovative arguments (Moscovici, 1985) or whether the discussion is aimed at reaching a particular decision rather than simply having discussion for discussion's sake (Smith, Tindale, & Dugoni, 1996), can determine the relative impact of minority opinions (e.g., Bettencourt & Dorr, 1998;Maass & Clark, 1984;Moscovici & Mugny, 1983;see also, Delli Carpini, Cook, & Jacobs, 2004;. Further, Gaertner and Dovidio have shown under the framework of the common ingroup identity model that encouraging interaction between subgroups within a larger group can facilitate cooperation and reduce intergroup bias (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2014). ...
... However, it may also be possible that by explicitly presenting issues as split into groups of opposing views, the background information may be politicizing the issues and making it easier for participants to become polarized. Group distinctions may become more salient, which may diminish the potential for compromise (Bettencourt & Dorr, 1998). ...
The purpose of this book is to share some results and the data from four studies in which we used experimental procedures to manipulate key features of deliberative public engagement to study the impacts in the context of deliberations about nanotechnology. In this chapter, we discuss the purpose of this book, which is to advance science of public engagement, and the overarching question motivating our research: What public engagement methods work for what purposes and why? We also briefly review existing prior work related to our overarching goal and question and introduce the contents of the rest of the book. Given the potential for negative—or at least controversial—effects of new technologies upon the societies in which various publics must live, what could be more democratic than promoting public involvement in decisions about those new technologies? Unless, of course, it turns out that public involvement, which can sometimes be costly, is ineffective, unnecessary, or actually makes things worse. Some have suggested this may be the case (e.g., Sunstein, 2000, 2002), but, for better or worse, public engagement with and about new technologies is happening all around us. Our interest in studying such public engagement—the topic of this book—is to learn how to design it for the better.
... For example, if a majority opinion exists, opinions will tend to move toward that preexisting majority opinion (Schkade, Sunstein, & Kahneman, 2000). But other aspects of the discussion, like the degree to which group norms place value on original or innovative arguments (Moscovici, 1985) or whether the discussion is aimed at reaching a particular decision rather than simply having discussion for discussion's sake (Smith, Tindale, & Dugoni, 1996), can determine the relative impact of minority opinions (e.g., Bettencourt & Dorr, 1998;Maass & Clark, 1984;Moscovici & Mugny, 1983;see also, Delli Carpini, Cook, & Jacobs, 2004;Mendelberg, 2002). Further, Gaertner and Dovidio have shown under the framework of the common ingroup identity model that encouraging interaction between subgroups within a larger group can facilitate cooperation and reduce intergroup bias (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2014 In Study 5, we varied a facet of attitude composition within groups that has been hypothesized to be central in some previous work (e.g., Mendelberg, 2002): attitudinal homogeneity. ...
... However, it may also be possible that by explicitly presenting issues as split into groups of opposing views, the background information may be politicizing the issues and making it easier for participants to become polarized. Group distinctions may become more salient, which may diminish the potential for compromise (Bettencourt & Dorr, 1998). ...
A key reason for conducting public engagements around science and innovation policies is to find out what the public thinks and feels about those policies and the innovations themselves. However, some scholars have suggested deliberation can create attitude polarization, which could be a barrier to effective group decision-making and social progress. Thus, it is important to know when, if, and why processes lead to polarization. In this chapter, we examine individuals’ attitudes toward nanotechnology and describe whether and how they are impacted by the design of public engagement. We focus particularly on the degree to which individuals’ attitudes change and perhaps become more extreme, as a function of deliberation. We find that for the most part, the average of participants’ attitudes toward nanotechnological development shifted toward being slightly more cautious over the course of the semester during each study we conducted, although other significant patterns of attitude change were evident among individuals. The features of deliberation that most consistently influenced attitudes were critical thinking prompts and information formatting, such that encouraging critical thinking and presenting information in a way that presented multiple perspectives often led individuals to take on more cautious views toward nanotechnology. Other features commonly theorized as having important consequences for deliberation showed mostly no effects, and we found little evidence of attitude polarization, a phenomenon feared by many scholars who have remained skeptical of deliberation. However, the degree to which group dynamics during deliberative discussion (specifically, group homogeneity) influenced attitude change and polarization was moderated by the personality variable trait of openness . Those high in openness were the least likely to experience attitude extremitization (attitude change in the direction of becoming more extreme) in attitudinally heterogeneous groups but the most likely to experience attitude extremitization in attitudinally homogeneous groups.
... Scholars have found that benefits of deliberation are unclear when participants cannot clearly determine the veracity of others' viewpoints (Przeworski, 1998). Studies have also showed that putting members from disparate social backgrounds together may exacerbate conflicts and prejudices (Bettencourt and Dorr, 1998;Miller and Davidson-Podgorny, 1987). In this connection, another empirical issue that this study attempts to address is the role of social capital in shaping citizens' willingness and ability to participate in public affairs. ...
To explore the mechanisms that foster rational, communicative, and actionable citizenship, this research proposes a mediation as well as moderation research framework that links deliberative thinking, political self-efficacy, social capital, and civic participation. Data from 865 Taiwanese university students are analyzed with structural equation modeling, showing a positive association of deliberative thinking to political self-efficacy and civic participation, as well as a positive association between them. Moreover, the association between deliberative thinking and civic participation is significantly and positively mediated by political self-efficacy. When background factors are controlled, only social capital is identified to be moderating any associations between variables in this study. The established association between deliberative thinking and political self-efficacy and that between deliberative thinking and the non-electoral, as well as community-based dimensions of civic participation, are significantly weaker among those possessing less social capital, while such differences are not significant in the case of gender and household income. Based on these findings, the relative roles of deliberative thinking, political self-efficacy, and social capital in promoting effective deliberative democracy will be discussed.
... Importantly, in this study, Black and White recipients did not share a pool of resources, and thus fewer resources for the Black recipient did not correspond to more resources for the White recipients. Although discrimination sometimes reflects ingroup favoritism rather than outgroup derogation (Allport, 1954;Brewer, 1999;Bettencourt & Dorr, 1998;Brewer, Manzi, & Shaw, 1993), two lines of research suggest the effect of scarcity and internal motivation on discrimination is driven by anti-Black derogation rather than pro-White favoritism. ...
When the economy declines, existing racial disparities typically expand, suggesting that economic scarcity may promote racial discrimination. To understand this pattern, we examined the effect of perceived scarcity on resource allocations to Black and White American recipients, and tested whether this effect depends on a decision maker's motivation to respond without prejudice. We proposed that scarcity would lead to increased discrimination among those with relatively low internal motivation but not those high in internal motivation. Indeed, we found that when resources were framed as scarce (vs. abundant or a control condition), low-motivation participants allocated less to Black than White recipients, whereas high-motivation participants allocated more to Black than White recipients (Studies 1 and 2). This pattern was strongest when decisions could be made deliberatively (Study 3), and anti-Black allocation bias emerged even in a non-zero-sum context (Studies 4 and 5), suggesting a strategic bias directed against Black recipients rather than in favor of White recipients. These findings indicate that the psychological perception of scarcity can produce racial bias in the distribution of economic resources, depending on the motivations of the decision maker-an effect that may contribute to the increase in racial disparities observed during economic stress. (PsycINFO Database Record
We experimentally study a non-exclusive group contest in which contestants actively participate in multiple groups simultaneously. We compare the results of this contest to those of an exclusive group contest in which each contestant belongs to a single group. In contrast to theoretical predictions, we find that the non-exclusive group contest generates less aggregate effort than the equivalent exclusive group contest. We hypothesize that groups in the non-exclusive group contest are less responsive to their rival group’s effort than those in the exclusive group contest. Likewise, on the individual level, players in the non-exclusive group contest are more likely to free-ride on their group members’ contributions. Our data indicate that non-free-riders in the non-exclusive group contest are more likely, over time, to allocate their effort toward a single group. This finding is consistent with previous findings that players facing a complex strategy space tend to focus on specific winning combinations. Moreover, given that players are affected by their group members’ contributions, they tend to exert their effort primarily toward a single group. Taken together, our findings suggest that a non-exclusive group contest may evolve, over time, into an exclusive group contest.
Democratic deliberation assumes and requires agents capable of rational, autonomous reasoning and judgment. Decades of research from psychology suggests that the agent required for deliberation may not, however, exist. The phenomenon of motivated reasoning poses a special challenge to democratic deliberation: it fundamentally undermines the idea that individuals are the originators of their reasons and that they can communicate those reasons to others. In this chapter I ask “Can we deliberate?” I argue that motivated reasoning poses a critical challenge to democratic deliberation, especially to the capacity of autonomy required for deliberation, but one that can be overcome through personal practices and institutional design. So, rather than abandon democratic deliberation because of the challenges raised by motivated reasoning, proponents of this approach to political decision making should use findings from social and political psychology as a tool. With an understanding of motivated reasoning in hand, what it is and how it works, theorists and practitioners of deliberation can produce better deliberative practices and institutions that include mechanisms to protect and enhance the critical capacities of rationality and autonomy.
Empathy is defined as the ability to understand and share others emotions (Batson, 1991). It is key in social relationships. Empathic concerns increase if the perceiver and target share common membership in a social category (Horstein,1978). Past literature has shown that people value others’ pain similar to how they value their own pain, to the extent that they empathize with the other person. The neural circuits activated in response to another’s pain is in the self’s ACC neural responses, an unconscious affect response, are weakened by race-defined intergroup relationships (Xu et al, 2009). In this study, we want to examine the effect of political belief bias on a person’s empathy for pain towards political ingroup and outgroup members. If political belief bias is proven in a person’s empathy for pain, the result will have significant social implications. Specifically, it can help us gain a better understanding of principal-agent relationships such as attorney and client, doctor and patient, donor and recipient.
This chapter examines ways to increase the value of job feedback for performance management and improvement. It establishes the foundation for understanding why feedback is important and how it can be structured and delivered to be accurate, accepted, and, most importantly, used to improve job performance. The chapter shows that how feedback can be beneficial and also how it can be detrimental to performance and the employee's sense of self-esteem. It considers the value of feedback to the individual employee, the team, and the organization, and the role of all of these perspectives to understanding how feedback is structured and operates. The chapter examines feedback from research and theories of learning and development that determine the effectiveness of feedback interventions. Goal setting and feedback are related to informal helping behaviors on the job as well as task job performance.
Several variables influence whether contact with a favorable out-group member has a beneficial impact on intergroup relations. In two experiments we examined the effect of competition-induced anxiety on reaction to the behavior of a favorable out-group member. In Experiment 1 a competitive context produced (a) anxiety, relative to a cooperative context, and (b) assimilation of a favorable out-group member to the unfavorable majority. Experiment 2 replicated this finding and showed that when anxiety was reduced, those who expected to compete with the out-group formed a more favorable and veridical impression of the positive out-group member. Taken together, results support the hypothesis that the expectation of an unpleasant competitive encounter with an out-group generates anxiety that, in turn, lessens the impact of positive behavior by an out-group member. Implications of this research for intergroup relations are discussed.
The present studies examined the relationship between allocentrism and subjective well-being. In addition, the mediational role of collective self-esteem for ascribed and acquired groups was tested. Study 1 showed that the reliable relation between allocentrism and life satisfaction was mediated by private, public, and membership collective self-esteem. Study 2 showed that once personal self-esteem was controlled, only private and public collective self-esteem mediated the relation between allocentrism and subjective well-being.
The results show that female subjects who anticipated being tokens-the only woman in the group were more likely than nontoken women to prefer a different group, to desire a change in the gender composition of the group, and to expect to stereotype others. These effects were stronger for token women with less confidence about an upcoming task. In contrast, token and nontoken male subjects did not differ in their responses to these measures. Yet potential female and male tokens, regardless of confidence, were both more likely to anticipate stereotypic evaluations from their group members. The authors discuss the relevance of these results to career choices by women in nontraditional careers.
Two experiments examined the difference between college students' perceptions of interpersonal and intergroup social interaction. In the first experiment, subjects rated the extent to which each of 50 personality-trait adjectives described one of these two types of interaction. Factor-analytic techniques yielded two seven-item adjective scales, "agreeableness" and "abrasiveness, " which served as the dependent variables in the two experiments. Subjects in the first experiment described interpersonal behavior as more agreeable and less abrasive than intergroup behavior. In a second experiment to clarify and extend the findings of the first, subjects anticipated interacting either alone or as part of a group (own interaction unit) with either a single other person or a group of others (other interaction unit). This 2 x 2 between-subjects design revealed no difference in the expected agreeableness of the interaction; however, subjects expecting interactions with a group predicted more abrasive interactions than subjects expecting interactions with an individual. Subjects' perceptions parallel typical game-playing behavior between individuals and groups.
This paper presents data concernings: a) dimensions underlying interracial perceptions; b) ways in which students see other-race schoolmates with respect to these perceptual dimensions; and c) the accuracy of the interracial perceptions. Data were obtained from almost 2,000 black students and over 2,000 white students in eleven high schools of Indianapolis. Whites tended to see blacks in terms of a general negative and a general positive dimension but blacks distinguished more between different positive and negative aspects of whites. Those perceived differences between the races which were based on observable traits appeared to be somewhat accurate, but those based on judgments of motives were not.
Artificial social categories were created in a laboratory context in order to test predictions regarding the relative importance of group size and status as determinants of in-group favoritism. Subjects were assigned to categories of “overestimator” or “under estimator” and were told that one category included a majority of college students while the other represented a minority. Prior to category assignment, half of the subjects had been given confidentiality instructions designed to make them feel highly depersonalized. Based on feedback about test performance, status differentials between the two estimation categories were introduced.
Consistent with predictions, there was a three-way interaction between depersonalization, in-group size, and in-group status as determinants of evaluative in-group bias on social trait ratings. Under control conditions (no depersonalization), group status and majority size both contributed to positive valuations of the in-group. Under the depersonalization condition, however, subjects valued minority group membership more than majority categorization, and the effect of status was eliminated.
This study tested an integrative model of how dimensions of contact (quantitative, qualitative, and intergroup) are related to intergroup anxiety, perceived out-group variability, and out group attitude. Data were collected in a field study of minority (Hindu) and majority (Muslim) religious groups in Bangladesh. Path analysis revealed that dimensions of contact were significant predictors of all three criterion variables, although different dimensions emerged as predictors in each case, and there were some interactions with subjects' religious group. AU three dimensions of contact were associated with intergroup anxiety, but whereas quantitative contact had a significant impact on perceived out-group variability, qualitative contact was associated with out-group attitude. The model highlights the central role of intergroup anxiety as associated with dimensions of contact and as a predictor of perceived out-group variability and out-group attitude.