The Role of Differentiation between Groups and Social Identity in Stereotype Formation*

Transcription

1 Social Psychology Quarterly 1998, Vol. 61, No. 4, The Role of Differentiation between Groups and Social Identity in Stereotype Formation* THOAS E. FORD Western ichigan University GEORGE R.TONANDER Kalamazoo College Subjects read about behaviors performed by members of two fictitious groups which related to the friendliness and intelligence of those groups. Subjects then completed measures to assess (1) the strength of association between the groups and each attribute in memory, and (2) perceptions ofintergroup differences in friendliness and intelligence. Subjects who believed that they were members of neither group perceived intergroup differences along each attribute dimension, and the highly differentiating dimension became more strongly associated with the groups in memory. For subjects who believed that they were members of one of the groups, however, the dimension that favorably distinguished the in-group from the out-group became more strongly associated with the groups even when that dimension was less differentiating. In addition, there is some evidence that subjects exhibited in-group biases in their perceptions of between-group differences along the relevant dimensions. Stereotypes are thought to serve a variety of functions for the social perceiver (for reviews see Ashmore and Del Boca 1981; Snyder and iene 1994; Stangor and Ford 1992; Stroebe and Insko 1989). One basic function of stereotypes is to simplify the process of understanding others by providing information about individuals based on group membership. Stereotypes thus reduce the amount of information in the social environment, obviating the need for effortful processing of interpersonal information (e.g., Allport 1954; Fiske and Taylor 1991; Hamilton and Trolier 1986). Recently, it has been argued that the informational value of stereotypes extends beyond providing a shortcut or substitute for processing interpersonal information. That is, stereotypes provide an informative, meaningful way of understanding social * This research was supported by Grant from the Western ichigan University Faculty Research and Creative Activities Support Fund awarded to the first author. We would like to thank Charles Stangor, Vincent Yzerbyt, and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on previous versions of this manuscript. Address correspondence to Thomas E. Ford, Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology, Western ichigan University, Kalamazoo, I fordt@wmich.edu). ( groups as something more than simply a collection of individuals (e.g., Oakes, Haslam, and Turner 1994; Oakes and Tlirner 1990). In this way, stereotypes "enrich" rather than merely simplify social understanding (Fiske 1993:165; Leyens, Yzerbyt, and Schadron 1994). The Role of Differentiation between Groups in Stereotype Formation Stereotypes are believed to have informational value insofar as they clearly differentiate people on the basis of group membership (e.g., Diehl and Jonas 1991; Fiske 1993; Oakes et al. 1994; Stangor and Schaller 1995; Tlirner 1987). Diehl and Jonas (1991), for instance, found that traits maximizing distinctiveness between groups facilitated inductive judgments made about an individual's category membership based on knowledge of that individual's traits. Because stereotypes may often serve such an informational function, one may expect that the goal of differentiating groups motivates the process of stereotype formation. In support of this hypothesis, research by Haslam, cgarty, and Brown (1996) suggests that the illusory correlation effect in stereotype formation (Hamilton and Gifford 372

2 DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN GROUPS ) is actually caused by an attempt to differetitiate groups in a meaningful way rather than by a tendency to overestimate the association between highly distinctive stimuli. Furthermore, Ford and Stangor (1992) demonstrated that as people formed stereotypes of newly encountered groups, attribute dimensions denoting large differences between groups or low variability within groups became more strongly associated with those groups than did dimensions denoting smaller between-group differences or greater within-group variability. These findings suggest that qualities which enhance the value of a trait for differentiating between groups contribute to making that trait stereotypical in the sense of becoming strongly associated with groups in memory. Consistent with this argument, ccauley and his colleagues report that traits which differentiate a social group from people in general are more likely to be judged as stereotypical than traits which are less differentiating (ccauley and Stitt 1978; ccauley, Stitt, and Segal 1980), The Role of Social Identity in Stereotype Formation Stereotypes do not only serve the function of facilitating social information processing. For instance, stereotypes are thought to often serve a "self-esteem enhancement" function, allowing people to feel good about themselves relative to members of a stereotyped group (e.g.,tajfel 1981; Wills 1981). It may be expected, then, that stereotypes are often formulated in ways that maximize their utility for self-esteem enhancement. Tajfel's social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner 1986) provides a framework for understanding how stereotypes may enhance one's self-esteem as well as how one's need for such enhancement might affect the process of stereotype formation. According to social identity theory, a person's social identity is the part of the selfconcept or identity that is derived from membership in social groups. Esteem for one's group, and thus one's social identity, may be positive or negative depending on how well the in-group compares to relevant out-groups on "value-laden" dimensions (Tajfel and Turner 1986:16), In addition, it is assumed that people wish to maintain a positive social identity and thus strive to differentiate the in-group favorably from relevant out-groups. Research using the classic "minimal group paradigm" demonstrates that mere categorization of people into an in-group ("us") and an out-group ("them") is sufficient to ehcit attempts to positively differentiate the in-group from the out-group along available dimensions (e,g,, Tajfel 1970; Tajfel et al, 1971), For instance, subjects in such minimal groups have been shown to allocate more rewards to members of the in-group than the out-group (e.g., Allen and Wilder 1975; Billig and Tajfel 1973; Brewer and Silver 1978), evaluate members of the ingroup more positively (e.g., Doise et al. 1972; Rabbie and Wilkens 1971), and remember more positive information about the in-group relative to the out-group (Howard and Rothbart 1980). Furthermore, social categorization has been shown to affect the formation of stereotypes as a means to positively distinguish the in-group from the out-group. Schaller and his colleagues, for instance, found that a group membership manipulation moderated the occurrence of the distinctiveness-based illusory correlation (Hamilton and Gifford 1976) during stereotype formation. Subjects who believed that they belonged to one of the two groups about which they had read formed a more positive stereotype of the ingroup than of the out-group even though negative information about the in-group was particularly distinctive or salient (e.g., Schaller 1991; Schaller and aass 1989). Although Schaller's research demonstrates the importance of motivation to attain a positive social identity in stereotype formation, it is not clear how such motivation affects stereotype formation when there are real intergroup differences that negatively distinguish the in-group from some relevant out-group. We propose that in such cases, people would exhibit more subtle biases in the way they structure emerging group stereotypes that contribute to a positive social identity but that are sensitive to the constraints of social realities. Indeed,

3 374 SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OUARTERLY attempts to favorably differentiate the ingroup from relevant out-groups appear to be restricted by "real" differences between the groups (e.g., ummendey and Schreiber 1984; Spears and anstead 1989). Strength of association. Borrowing from cognitive psychology's associative network models of semantic memory (Anderson 1976; Collins and Loftus 1975), social psychologists have conceptualized stereotypes as cognitive structures represented by mental associations between the name of a social group (e.g., accountant) and various attributes (e.g., nerdy, boring, intelligent) (e.g., Devine 1989; Stangor and Lange 1994; Stephan 1989). According to the associative network models, the activation of a social group in memory is assumed to automatically activate associated attributes through "spreading of activation." However, the degree of spreading of activation that occurs between associated knowledge structures (e.g., the likelihood that "nerdy" will come to mind when one thinks about or encounters an accountant) is thought to be determined by the strength of the associative links (Collins and Loftus 1975; Stephan 1989). Therefore the importance of a given attribute for defining the group stereotype depends on the strength of the association between that attribute and the group name in memory. Accordingly, we propose that when there exist real intergroup differences that negatively distinguish the in-group from some relevant out-group, motivation to attain a positive social identity will influence the structure of emerging stereotypes by biasing the strength with which positively and negatively differentiating attribute dimensions become associated with the ingroup and the out-group in memory. Consider the college freshman, for instance, who finds he has joined the "dumbest" fraternity on campus (the one that's routinely on academic probation for low grades). The student has a dilemma: He will naturally be motivated to form a positive impression of his fraternity, but in reality there are some highly differentiating negative characteristics that are difficult to deny. The student might resolve his dilemma by forming a relatively stronger associative link between his fraternity and some other dimension, such as athleticism, which favorably distinguishes the in-group, even if that dimension is relatively nondiagnostic of intergroup differences. So, while both favorable and unfavorable characteristics would become part of the student's group representation (reflecting the reality of intergroup differences), the less differentiating favorable characteristics might become more central in defining his group representation (that is, more strongly associated with his fraternity in memory) than for more "objective" social perceivers who have no relevant group affiliation. Perceptions of intergroup differences. Ellemers et al. (1997) found that members of a student group which had received negative pubhcity on campus (a threat to social identity) recognized that the in-group could be characterized by more negative traits in comparison to a relevant out-group. embers of the threatened group, however, rated their negative traits as less typical of themselves than did the subjects with no group affiliation. This finding suggests that members of the threatened group attenuated their perceptions of how much their negative characteristics set them apart from other groups. The threat to social identity led subjects in the Ellemers et al. study to attenuate perceptions of intergroup differences in terms of the in-group's negative characteristics in order to maintain or preserve their positive social identity. As an extension of those findings, it may be expected that people will exhibit similar biases in their perceptions of intergroup differences when forming group stereotypes to ensure the development of a positive social identity. Thus, the student in the example described above might resolve his dilemma by altering his perceptions of the relative diagnosticity of different attribute dimensions (also see van Knippenberg 1984), For instance, while forming group stereotypes, the student might acknowledge the in-group's relative inferiority in intelligence, but might attenuate his perceptions of intergroup differences in intelligence. By the same token, he might also accentuate perceptions of intergroup differences in athleticism which favorably distinguishes the in-group.

4 DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN GROUPS 375 Hypothesis In the present study, we tested the hypothesis that when social identity is threatened that is, when a highly differentiating attribute dimension reflects negatively on the in-group the social perceiver will form stereotypes of the in-group and the out-group that reflect the in-group's inferiority along that dimension, but will alter the structure of those emerging stereotypes. First, the perceiver is likely to form stronger associations between the two groups and attribute dimensions that favorably distinguish the in-group from an out-group (even if those dimensions are relatively nondiagnostic of intergroup differences) relative to a perceiver who is not experiencing such a threat to social identity Second, the perceiver may also attenuate perceptions of intergroup differences along the highly differentiating attribute dimension that negatively distinguishes the in-group from the outgroup, or may accentuate perceptions of differences along less differentiating dimensions that positively distinguishes the ingroup from the out-group. These two subtle in-group biases would presumably allow emerging stereotypes to contribute to the development of a positive social identity while still conforming to the social reality of actual intergroup differences. The social perceiver may acknowledge the in-group's inferiority while still achieving positive differentiation from a relevant out-group. Overview ETHOD To test our hypothesis, we created a situation in the laboratory comparable to that of the college freshman in the example above. We presented subjects with behaviors performed by members of two fictitious social groups (Group X and Group Y), and asked them to form impressions of those groups. Each group was described by behaviors pertaining to intelligence and friendliness. Group X was less intelligent but more friendly than Group Y. However, for one half of the subjects, there was a greater mean difference between the groups in friendliness than in intelligence. For the other half, intelligence was the more differentiating dimension. Before reading the behaviors, one-third of the subjects were led to believe that they were members of Group X (the unintelligent, friendly group), one-third were led to believe that they were members of Group Y (the intelligent, unfriendly group), and onethird were led to believe that they were members of neither Group X nor Group Y but were members of a third group. Group Z. Upon reading the behaviors, subjects completed a thought-listing task to assess the associative strength between each attribute dimension and the group names in memory. Subjects then rated the friendliness and intelhgence of the two groups. Subjects and Design Subjects were 29 male and 89 female introductory-level sociology and communication students who participated in exchange for credit in their courses.' Subjects were randomly assigned to one of six conditions in a 3 (group membership: Group X, Group Y, Group Z) x 2 ("larger mean difference" dimension: friendliness, intelligence) between-subjects design. Stimulus aterials We prepared booklets containing the behavioral descriptions developed by Ford and Stangor (1992). A description of each behavior was typed on a single page along with the name of a social group identified as Group X or Group Y Group X and Group Y were each described by 18 different behaviors: six related to friendliness, six related to intelhgence, and six related to neither friendliness nor intelligence. For instance, one description pertaining to friendliness said, "A member of Group X cooked dinner all week for his roommate who was sick." The order of the behavioral descriptions appearing in the booklets was randomly determined. Each group was described more positively than the other in terms of one ' We found no effects of gender of subject; thus we collapsed all analyses across this variable.

5 376 SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OUARTERLY attribute dimension, and more negatively in terms of the other. Group X was friendlier but less intelligent than Group Y. In addition, the size of the mean difference between Group X and Group Y in friendliness and intelligence was varied by condition. Ratings of the friendliness and intelligence of the behaviors reported by Ford and Stangor (1992:358) indicate that in the "larger mean difference on friendliness" condition, the difference between the groups was significantly larger in friendliness (s = 7.8 vs. 1.8) than in intelligence (s = 3.4 vs. 6.5). In the "larger mean difference on intelligence" condition, the difference between the groups was significantly larger in intelligence (s = 2.2 vs. 7.6) than in friendliness (s = 6.8 vs. 2.8). Procedure Subjects completed the experiment individually. Upon arrival at the laboratory, they were told that the experiment was designed to investigate how people form impressions of social groups; they would be presented with booklets containing sentences that described behaviors performed by members of different groups. Subjects were told to form impressions of the groups as they read the behavioral descriptions. We manipulated subjects' group membership using a strategy similar to that used by Schaller and aass (1989). Subjects were given the following instructions: The groups you're going to read about are identified as Group X, Group Y and Group Z. The labels X, Y, and Z stand for three distinctly different types of personality. The psychology department has recently developed a psychological inventory which classifies people as having one of three different types of personality what are being referred to as type X, type Y and type Z for simplicity. So, that means that people in Group X share some fundamental aspects of personality as do people in Group Y and Group Z. Now, in a different study, we talked to a number of people belonging to each of these different groups, and we asked them to list behaviors they had performed in the recent past. We did that for reasons specific to that study, but the behaviors we discussed in that study are the ones I'm going to show you today. However, because of time constraints, I'm only able to show you behaviors performed by two of the groups, and as it turns out, in this session that will be Group X and Group Y. Now, one thing I want to control for in this study is our subjects' own personality type. So, before we begin, I would like you to complete the personality inventory so I can determine whether you belong to Group X, Group Y, or Group Z. Subjects then completed a 23-item questionnaire that appeared to assess some dimensions of personality. Then, the experimenter tabulated the responses by hand and computed a "personality classification score." One-third of the subjects were told that they had the type X personality and were thus members of Group X. Another one-third were told that they had the type Y personality and were thus members of Group Y. The final one-third of the subjects were told that they had the type Z personality, and were thus members of Group Z. At this point, all subjects read the 36 behavioral descriptions as they appeared in the booklet. After reading the behavioral descriptions, subjects completed the thought listing measure. The name of each group was printed at the top of a single page. Subjects were instructed to characterize each group by writing one thought about the group in each of four boxes appearing below each group name. Such free-response measures have been used in a number of other studies to assess of the strength of association between group names and various attributes contained within one's cognitive representations of those groups (e.g., Devine 1989; Ford and Stangor 1992). The number of thoughts for each group pertaining to a given attribute dimension (friendliness or intelligence) provided an index of the strength of association in memory between that dimension and the group names. Next, subjects rated the two groups on friendliness and intelligence, using 11-point scales (1 = "not at all"; 11 = "extremely"). This attribute rating measure was designed to assess the availability or presence of each trait within subjects' group representations. (For a discussion of measures of availability versus strength of association, see Stangor and Lange 1994).

6 DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN GROUPS 377 After completing the booklets, subjects were probed for suspicion of the true purpose of the experiment, and then were debriefed. The responses of one subject (from the "member of Group Y" condition) indicated suspicion; that subject was replaced. Attribute Ratings RESULTS Attribute ratings were examined separately within the "larger mean difference on friendliness" condition and the "larger mean difference on intelligence" condition. The mean attribute ratings for each group in terms of friendliness and intelligence in the "larger mean difference on friendliness" condition are displayed in Table 1. A 3 (group membership: Group X, Group Y, Group Z) x 2 (group rated: Group X, Group Y) X 2 (attribute dimension: intelligence, friendliness) ANOVA with repeated measures on the last two factors was conducted on the attribute ratings. There was a significant group rated by attribute dimension interaction, F (1, 55) = p <.001. As expected. Group X was rated as friendlier ( = 9.81) than Group Y ( = 4.44), F (1,57) = ,p <.001, and Group Y was rated as more intelligent ( = 8.85) than Group X ( = 6.14), F (1, 59) = 65.12, p <.001. These findings suggest that subjects distinguished between the groups in terms of both attribute dimensions. Also, a planned comparison revealed that members of Group Y (the threatened group) perceived Group Y as less friendly ( = 5.67) than Group X ( = 9.39), F (1, 55) = p <.001. This finding suggests, in keeping with our hypothesis, that members of the threatened group recognized the in-group's relative inferiority along the negatively differentiating dimension. To compare perceptions of betweengroup differences along each attribute dimension, we analyzed the absolute difference between the groups on each dimension in a 3 (group membership) x 2 (attribute dimension) ANOVA. The predicted group membership by attribute dimension interaction was significant, F (2,55) = 8.53,p <.001, indicating that perceptions of betweengroup differences in intelligence and friendliness varied as a function of the manipulation of group membership. As expected, members of Group Z perceived a greater difference between the two groups in friendliness ( = 5.93) than in intelligence ( = 2.19), F (1,20) = 26.80, p <.001. embers of Group X also perceived a greater difference between the groups in friendliness ( = 6.27) than in intelligence ( = 2.15), F (1, 18) = 34.77, p <.001. embers of Group Y, however, perceived an approximately equal difference between the groups in friendliness ( = 3.72) and in intelligence ( = 3.89), F (1,17) < 1. In addition, members of Group Y perceived friendliness to be less differentiating ( = 3.72) than did members of Group Z ( = 5.93), t (55) = 2.05, p =.04 OT members of Group X ( = 6.27), t (55) = 2.28, p =.028. Finally, members of Group Y perceived intelligence to be more differentiating ( = 3.89) than did members of Group Z ( = 2.19), t (55) = -2.14, p =.037 or members of Group X ( = 2.15), t (55) = -2.13, p =.038. These results support our hypothesis, suggesting that members of Group Y attenuated their perceptions of between-group differences in friendliness and accentuated their perceived between-group differences in intelligence. Table 2 shows the mean attribute ratings for each group in friendliness and intelligence in the "larger mean difference on intelligence" condition. Again, a 3 (group membership) x 2 (group rated) x 2 (attribute dimension) analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures on the last two factors revealed a significant group rated by attribute dimension interaction, F (1, 57) = ,/? <.001. As expected. Group X was rated as friendlier ( = 9.57) than Group Y ( = 4.57), F (1,59) = ,p <.001, and Group Y was rated as more intelligent ( = 9.85) than Group X ( = 5.92), F (1, 59) = ,/? <.001. This finding suggests that subjects distinguished between the groups on both attribute dimensions. In addition, a planned comparison revealed that members of Group X (the threatened group) perceived Group X as less intelligent ( = 6.48) than Group Y ( = 9.81), F (1, 57) == 44.87, p <.001. Again, as predicted, members of the

7 378 SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OUARTERLY threatened group recognized the in-group's inferiority along the negatively differentiating dimension. To compare perceptions of betweengroup differences along each attribute dimension, we analyzed the absolute difference between the groups on each dimension in a 3 (group membership) x 2 (attribute dimension) ANOVA. As predicted, the group membership by attribute dimension interaction effect was significant, F (2, 57) = 3.18, p =.049; this suggests that perceptions of between-group differences in intelligence and friendliness varied as a function of the manipulation of group membership. embers of Group Z perceived a greater difference between the two groups in intelligence ( = 5.37) than in friendliness ( = 4.89). This difference, however, was not significant, F (1,18) < 1. In contrast, members of Group X perceived a greater difference between the two groups in friendliness ( = 5.10) than in intelligence ( = 3.33), F (1, 20) = 7.42, p =.013. In addition, members of Group X perceived intelligence to be less differentiating ( = 3.33) than did members of Group Z (Af = 5.37), t (57) = 2.77, p =.007. We found no significant difference, however, in perceptions of differentiation between members of Group X and Group Z in terms of friendliness. Consistent with our hypothesis, it appears that although members of Group X acknowledged that they were less intelligent than members of Group Y, they minimized the extent to which intelligence differentiated them from Group Y. Surprisingly, members of Group Y also perceived a greater difference between the groups in friendliness ( = 5.00) than in intelligence ( = 3.20), F (1,19) = 6.31, p =.021. embers of Group Y also minimized the extent to which intelligence differentiated between the two groups relative to members of Group Z, t (57) = 2.92, p =.005. We found no difference between members of Group X and members of Group Y in perceptions of differentiation in terms of intelligence or friendliness. Thought Listings We predicted that when we asked subjects to list their thoughts about the two groups, members of Group Z would list more thoughts pertaining to the attribute Table 1. ean Attribute Ratings of Each Group in Terms of Friendliness and Intelligence in the "Larger ean Difference on Friendliness" Condition Group Rated X Friendliness Y Attribute Dimension IX-YI X Intelligence Y IX-YI ember of Group Z (n = 21) ember of Group X (n = 19) ember of Group Y (n = 18) Table 2. ean Attribute Ratings of Each Group in Terms of Friendliness and Intelligence in the "Larger ean Difference on Intelhgence" Condition Group Rated ember of Group Z («= 19) ember of Group X («= 21) ember of Group Y (n = 20) X Friendliness Attribute Dimension IX-YI Intelligence IX-YI

8 DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN GROUPS 379 dimension that indicated the greater mean difference between Group X and Group Y. In contrast, we predicted that subjects for whom the more differentiating dimension reflected negatively on the in-group (Group X in the "larger mean difference on intelligence" condition, and Group Y in the "larger mean difference on friendliness" condition) would list more thoughts in terms of the less differentiating attribute dimension than would members of the other two groups. The experimenter and an independent judge, each unaware of condition, coded the thoughts generated for each group by each subject. Thoughts were coded as being associated with friendliness, with intelligence, or with neither attribute dimension. Agreement between judges was 90 percent; disagreement was resolved through discussion. Because attribute-irrelevant thoughts were not theoretically interesting, we did not include them in subsequent analyses. A 3 (group membership: Group X, Group Y, Group Z) x 2 ("larger mean difference" dimension: intelligence, friendliness) x 2 (generated attribute dimension: intelligence, friendliness) x 2 (group rated: Group X, Group Y) ANOVA with repeated measures on the last two factors was conducted on the thought listings. The predicted group membership by "larger mean difference" dimension by generated attribute dimension interaction was significant, F (2,112) = 6.31, p <.003. The means for this interaction effect are presented in Table 3. Planned comparisons revealed that in the "larger mean difference on friendliness" condition, members of Group Z listed more thoughts about the groups in terms of friendliness ( = 4.29) than intelligence ( = 1.38), F (1, 112) = 85.19, p <.001. embers of Group X also listed more thoughts in terms of friendliness ( = 3.63) than intelligence ( = 1.84), F (1, 112) = 29.25, p <.001. By contrast, members of Group Y listed an approximately equal number of thoughts in terms of friendliness ( = 3.33) and intelligence ( = 3.44), F (1, 112) < 1. This finding indicates that, as predicted, the tendency for the more differentiating dimension to become more strongly associated with the groups was attenuated when that dimension reflected negatively on the in-group. Also, members of Group Y listed a significantly higher proportion of thoughts in terms of intelligence { =.52) than did members of Group Z ( =.22), t (55) = 5.40, p <.001 or members of Group X ( =.32), t (55) = 3.53,p <.001. This finding supports the hypothesis suggesting that intelligence, which positively distinguished Group Y from Group X, had become more strongly associated with the groups for members of Group Y than it did for members of the other two groups. In the "larger mean difference on intelligence" condition, members of Group Z listed more thoughts about the groups in terms of intelligence ( = 3.68) than in terms of friendliness ( = 2.68), F (1,112) = 9.13, p <.01. embers of Group Y also listed more thoughts in terms of intelligence ( = 3.70) than friendliness ( = 2.25), F (1, 112) = 20.22, p <.001. embers of Group X, on the other hand, listed more thoughts in terms of friendliness ( = 3.62) than intelligence ( = 2.71), F (1,112) = 8.27,p <.01. In addition, members of Group X listed a significantly higher proportion of thoughts in Table 3. ean Number of Generated Thoughts Pertaining to Friendliness and Intelligence by Condition Generated Dimension ember of Group Z ember of Group X ember of Group Y Note: Cell ns are shown in parentheses. "Larger ean Difference Dimension" Friendliness Intelligence Friendliness Intelligence Friendliness Intelligence (21) (19) (18) (19) (21) (20) 1.42

9 380 SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OUARTERLY terms of friendliness ( =.58) than did members of Group Z ( =.41), t (57) = -2.82, p =.007 or members of Group Y ( =.37), f (55) = 3.67,/? =.001. These results suggest that members of Group Z and Group Y structured emerging stereotypes such that the more differentiating attribute dimension intelligence became more strongly associated with the groups in memory. In keeping with our hypothesis, members of Group X structured their stereotypes such that the friendliness dimension became more strongly associated with the groups in memory than it did for members of Group Z or members of Group Y. Furthermore, for members of Group X, the friendliness dimension became even more strongly associated with the groups in memory than did the more differentiating intelligence dimension. Also, recall that in the "larger mean difference on intelligence" condition, members of Group Y had perceived a greater difference between the groups in friendliness than in intelligence. Even though members of Group Y perceived friendliness to be the more differentiating dimension, they listed more thoughts in terms of intelligence the dimension that positively distinguished them from Group X. It is possible that the effect of threat to social identity on the "strength of association" measure was mediated by threatened subjects' tendency to accentuate the extent to which the "smaller mean difference" dimension differentiated between the groups, and to attenuate the extent to which the "larger mean difference" dimension differentiated between the groups. However, when we conducted an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) on the thought listings, with the attribute ratings of each group in terms of friendliness and intelligence serving as covariates, the group membership by "larger mean difference dimension" by generated attribute dimension interaction remained significant, F (2, 111) = 6.08, p =.003. DISCUSSION The results of this experiment support our hypothesis. When social identity is threatened by the reality that the in-group is negatively distinguished from an out-group along some highly differentiating dimension, the social perceiver is likely to structure emerging stereotypes in a way that ensures the development of a positive social identity while still reflecting the in-group's negative standing along that dimension. First, the results on the "strength of association" measure indicate that such threat to social identity influenced the strength with which positively and negatively differentiating attribute dimensions became associated with the in-group and the out-group in memory. In the "larger mean difference on friendliness" condition, members of Group Y listed a higher proportion of thoughts in terms of intelligence than did members of Group Z or Group X; this finding suggests that intelligence had become more strongly associated with the groups for members of Group Y than it did for members of the other two groups. In the "larger mean difference on intelligence" condition, members of Group X listed a higher proportion of thoughts in terms of friendliness than did members of Group Z or Group Y. In addition, the less differentiating friendliness dimension became even more strongly associated with the groups in memory for members of Group X than did the more differentiating intelligence dimension.^ These results suggest that for subjects experiencing threat to social identity, the attribute dimension that reflected favorably on the in-group but was relatively nondiagnostic of actual intergroup differences became more central in defining stereotypes of the in-group and the out-group than for nonthreatened subjects. This subtle in-group bias ensures that emerging stereotypes will contribute to the development of a positive social identity while still conforming to the social reality of actual intergroup differences. ^ In the "larger mean difference on intelligence" condition, members of Group Y perceived friendliness as more differentiating and thus experienced threat to social identity as it was operationalized in this study. In agreement with what would be expected under such conditions of threat, members of Group Y listed more thoughts about the groups in terms of intelligence than friendliness.

10 DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN GROUPS 381 Second, the results on the attribute ratings in the "larger mean difference on friendliness" condition support our prediction that when social identity is threatened, perceptions of intergroup differences will be biased during stereotype formation to ensure the development of a positive social identity. Relative to members of Group Z or members of Group X, members of Group Y (the "threatened" group) attenuated their perceptions of between-group differences in terms of friendliness, which negatively distinguished Group Y, and accentuated their perceptions of between-group differences in terms of intelligence, which positively distinguished Group Y The results in the "larger mean difference on intelligence" condition, however, only partially support the prediction. embers of Group X (the "threatened" group) perceived friendliness, which positively distinguished Group X to be more differentiating than intelligence, which negatively distinguished Group X. embers of Group Z, however, tended to perceive intelligence as more differentiating. In addition, members of Group X attenuated their perceptions of between-group differences in terms of intelligence relative to members of Group Z. otivation to attain a positive social identity provides a plausible account for this finding; it does not, however, account for the peculiar finding that members of Group Y (the "nonthreatened" group) also perceived friendliness, which negatively distinguished Group Y to be more differentiating than intelligence, the dimension that positively distinguished Group Y. This latter finding casts a bit of uncertainty on the extent to which perceptions of intergroup differences were affected by motivation to attain a positive social identity. It is possible that the in-group bias observed on the "strength of association" measure may be exhibited insofar as an individual derives his or her social identity from membership in the "threatened" group. Indeed, the degree of in-group identification has been shown to influence the magnitude of in-group bias in other ways, such as in the distribution of resources (Gagnon and Bourhis 1996). Relevant to the present research, social contextual factors, such as the permeability of group boundaries, have been shown to influence the degree of ingroup identification (van Knippenberg and Ellemers 1990). Specifically, unchangeable group boundaries enhance in-group identification and motivation to differentiate the ingroup positively from relevant out-groups (van Knippenberg and Ellemers 1990). Thus the permeability of group boundaries may be expected to moderate the effects observed in the present research. In the present study, group membership was assigned on the basis of responses to a personality inventory, and thus was largely impermeable. It is possible that if subjects could leave the threatened group and join another, they would not alter the structure of emerging stereotypes in order to positively differentiate the in-group from the out-group. Thus the relationship between in-group identification and stereotype formation may be worth exploring in future research. One limitation of the present research is that it does not provide direct evidence of mediating processes. The results of the ANCOVA on the "strength of association" measure suggest that the effect of threat to social identity on strength of association was not mediated by perceptions of intergroup differences on the "large" and the "small" mean difference dimensions. This is not surprising because although measures of strength of association and measures of availability may be related more highly differentiating dimensions are likely to become more strongly associated with groups in memory (Ford and Stangor 1992; Stangor and Lange 1994) these measures are conceptually and empirically distinct (Stangor and Lange 1994). It is possible that subjects' causal attributions for the group behaviors may have mediated the effects of attribute diagnosticity and threat to social identity on the "strength of association" measure. Subjects may have made a greater number of spontaneous trait inferences (Uleman 1987) in response to behaviors pertaining to the more diagnostic dimension or the dimension that reflected positively on the in-group, and as a result, that dimension became more strongly associated with the groups in memory.

11 382 SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OUARTERLY The possibility that behaviors pertaining to the more diagnostic dimension elicited more spontaneous trait inferences is consistent with the attribution literature which suggests that highly distinctive behaviors provide more information about an individual's underlying dispositions (Jones and Davis 1965; Kelley 1967). In addition, there is evidence that group membership influences attributions of positive and negative behaviors performed by members of the ingroup and members of an out-group. Taylor and Jaggi (1974), for instance, demonstrated that socially undesirable behaviors are likely to be attributed to external causes when performed by a member of the in-group, but to internal causes when performed by a member of an out-group. Therefore, the manipulation of group membership may have influenced the attribution of behaviors related to the friendliness and intelligence dimensions, and thus may have affected the strength with which those dimensions became associated with the groups in memory. CONCLUSION The present research suggests that motivation to attain positive social identity may influence the structure of emerging stereotypes. Although the perceiver may acknowledge his or her in-group inferiority along dimensions of differentiation, dimensions that favorably distinguish the in-group from a relevant out-group (regardless of degree of differentiation) may become more strongly associated with those groups in memory. As a result, group stereotypes may contain both positive and negative characteristics, but the positive characteristics will become more central in defining the group stereotypes. This subtle in-group bias ensures that emerging stereotypes contribute to the development of a positive social identity while still reflecting the reality of actual intergroup differences. REFERENCES Allen, Vernon L. and David A. Wilder "Categorization, Belief Similarity, and Intergroup Discrimination." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 32: Allport, Gordon W The Nature of Prejudice. Reading, A: Addison-Wesley. Anderson, John R Language, emory and Thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Ashmore, Richard D. and Frances K. Del Boca "Conceptual Approaches to Stereotypes and Stereotyping." Pp in Cognitive Processes in Stereotyping and Intergroup Behavior, edited by D. L. Hamilton. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Billig, ichael and Henri Tajfel "Social Categorization and Similarity in Intergroup Behavior." European Journal of Social Psychology 3: Brewer, arilyn B. and adelyn Silver "Ingroup Bias as a Function of Task Characteristics." European Journal of Social Psychology 8: Collins, Allen. and Elizabeth F. Loftus "A Spreading-Activation Theory of Semantic emory." Psychological Review 82: Devine, Patricia G "Stereotypes and Prejudice: Their Automatic and Controlled Components." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56:5-18. Diehl, ichael and Klaus Jonas "easures of National Stereotypes as Predictors of the Latencies of Inductive Versus Deductive Stereotypic Judgments." European Journal of Social Psychology 21: Doise, W., G. Csepeli, H. D. Dann, C. Gouge, K. Larsen, and A. Ostell "An Experimental Investigation into the Formation of Intergroup Representations." European Journal of Social Psychology 2: Ellemers, Naomi, Wendy Van Rijswijk, arlene Roefs, and Catrien Simons "Bias in Intergroup Perceptions: Balancing Group Identity With Social Reality." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 23: Fiske, Susan T "Social Cognition and Social Perception." Annual Review of Psychology 44: Fiske, Susan T, and Shelley E. Taylor Social Cognition. 2nd ed. New York: cgraw-hill. Ford, Thomas E. and Charles Stangor "The Role of Diagnosticity in Stereotype Formation: Perceiving Group eans and Variances." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63: Gagnon, Andre and Richard Y. Bourhis "Discrimination in the inimal Group Paradigm: Social Identity or Self-interest?" Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 22: Hamilton, David L. and R. K. Gifford "Illusory Correlation in Interpersonal Perception: A Cognitive Basis of

12 DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN GROUPS 383 Stereotypic Judgments," Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 12: , Hamilton, David L, and Tina K, Trolier. 1986, "Stereotypes and Stereotyping: An Overview of the Cognitive Approach," Pp, in Prejudice, Discrimination, and Racism, edited by J, F, Dovidio and S. L, Gaertner. San Diego: Academic Press, Haslam, S, Alexander, Craig cgarty, and Patricia, Brown, 1996, "The Search for Differentiated eaning is a Precursor to Illusory Correlation," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 22:611-19, Howard, John W, and yron Rothbart, 1980, "Social Categorization and emory for In- Group and Out-Group Behavior," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 38:301-10, Jones, Edward E, and Keith E, Davis. 1965, "From Acts to Dispositions: The Attribution Process in Person Perception," Pp, in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, edited by L, Berkowitz, New York: Academic Press. Kelley, Harold, 1967, "Attribution Theory in Social Psychology," Pp, in Nebraska Symposium on otivation, Vol, 15, edited by D, Levine, Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Leyens, Jacques-Philippe, Vincent Yzerbyt, and Georges Schadron. 1994, Stereotypes and Social Cognition. London: Sage, ccauley, Clark and Christopher L, Stitt, 1978, "An Individual and Quantitative easure of Stereotypes," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36:929-40, ccauley, Clark, Christopher L, Stitt, and ary Segal, 1980, "Stereotyping: From Prejudice to Prediction," Psychological Bulletin 87: ummendey, Amelie and Jans-Joachim Schreiber, "'Different' Just eans 'Better': Some Obvious and Some Hidden Pathways to In-Group Favouritism." British Journal of Social Psychology 23:363-68, Oakes, Penelope J,, S, Alexander Haslam, and John C, Turner, 1994, Stereotyping and Social Reality. Oxford: Blackwell, Oakes, Penelope J, and John C Hirner, 1990, "Is Limited Information Processing Capacity the Cause of Social Stereotyping?" Pp, in European Review of Social Psychology, Vol, 1, edited by W, Stroebe and, Hewstone, Chichester, UK: Wiley, Rabbie, Jacob, and Gerard Wilkens, 1971, "Intergroup Competition and Its Effect on Intragroup and Intergroup Relations," European Journal of Social Psychology 1: , Schaller, ark, 1991, "Social Categorization and the Formation of Group Stereotypes: Further Evidence for Biased Information Processing in the Perception of Group- Behavior Correlations," European Journal of Social Psychology 21: Schaller, ark and Anne aass, 1989, "Illusory Correlation and Social Categorization: Toward an Integration of otivational and Cognitive Factors in Stereotype Formation," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56:709-21, Snyder, ark P, and P, iene, 1994, "On the Functions of Stereotypes and Prejudice," Pp, in The Psychology of Prejudice: The Ontario Symposium, edited by, P, Zanna and J,, Olson, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, Spears, Russell and A, S, R, anstead, 1989, "The Social Context of Stereotyping and Differentiation," European Journal of Social Psychology 19:101-21, Stangor, Charles and Thomas E, Ford, 1992, "Accuracy and Expectancy-Confirming Processing Orientations and the Development of Stereotypes and Prejudice," European Review of Social Psychology 3:57-89, Stangor, Charles and James E, Lange, 1994, "ental Representations of Social Groups: Advances in Understanding Stereotypes and Stereotyping," Pp, in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol, 26, edited by, Zanna, New York: Academic Press, Stangor, Charles and ark Schaller, 1995, "Stereotypes as Individual and Collective Representations," Pp, 3-37 in Stereotypes and Stereotyping, edited by C N, acrae, C, Stangor, and, Hewstone, New York: Guilford, Stephan, Walter G, 1989, "A Cognitive Approach to Stereotyping," Pp, in Stereotyping and Prejudice, edited by D, Bar-Tal, C, F, Graumann, A, W, Kruglanski, and W, Stroebe, New York: Springer, Stroebe, Wolfgang and Chester A, Insko, 1989, "Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination: Changing Conceptions in Theory and Research," Pp, 3-34 in Stereotyping and Prejudice, edited by D, Bar-Tal, C, F, Graumann, A, W, Kruglanski, and W, Stroebe, New York: Springer, Tajfel, Henri, 1970, "Experiments in Intergroup Discrimination," Scientific American 5:96-102,, 1981, Human Groups and Social Categories. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, Tajfel, Henri, ichael Billig, R, P Bundy, and Claude Flament, 1971, "Social

13 384 SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OUARTERLY Categorization and Intergroup Behavior." European Journal of Social Psychology 1: Tajfel, Henri and John C. Turner "The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior." Pp in Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Vol 2, edited by S. Worchel and W. G. Austin. Chicago: Nelson- Hall. Taylor, Donald. and Vaishna Jaggi Control: The Case of Spontaneous Trait Inferences." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 13: van Knippenberg, Ad "Intergroup Differences in Group Perceptions." Pp in The Social Dimension: European Developments in Social Psychology, edited by H. Tajfel. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. van Knippenberg, Ad and Naomi Ellemers "Ethnocentrism and Causal Attribution in a "Social Identity and Intergroup South Indian Context." Journal of Cross- Cultural Psychology 5: Turner, John C Rediscovering the Social Differentiation Processes." European Review of Social Psychology 1: Wills, Thomas A "Downward Comparison Group. Oxford: Blackwell. Principles in Social Psychology." Uleman, James S "Consciousness and Psychological Bulletin 90: Thomas E. Ford is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at Western ichigan University. His research interests include understanding the determinants and consequences of the use of stereotypes in social judgment. George R. Tonander received his B. A. in psychology from Kalamazoo College in 1996.

14