Linguistic intergroup bias Abstract language and intergroup context

Linguistic inter-group bias Abstract language and inter-group context

Linguistic inter-group bias • Analyses of the Linguistic Category Model within an inter-group context • Inter-group context – Self included in a group = ingroup – Ingroup differentiated from an outgroup » Social Identity Theory (SIT) » Self-Categorization Theory (SCT)

Linguistic inter-group bias • Self-Ingroup – Identification and self-categorization – Depersonalization: switching from I to We – Self-stereotyping (group-to-self)

Linguistic inter-group bias • Ingroup-Outgroup – Inter-group differentiation • Stressing the difference between the in- and the outgroup (we are different from them) – Inter-group positive distinctiveness • Stressing the ingroup favoritism (we are better than them)

Linguistic inter-group bias • Minimal group paradimg – Esthetic preference – (random) assignment to a group (selfcategorization) – Allocation matrix test ingroup 4 6 8 9 1 0 11 12 14 15 outgroup 1 2 5 6 1 0 11 12 13 14

Linguistic inter-group bias • fairness ingroup 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 outgroup 1 2 5 6 10 11 12 13 14

Linguistic inter-group bias • Absolute gain ingroup 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 outgroup 1 3 5 6 10 11 12 13 14

Linguistic inter-group bias • Relative gain ingroup 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 outgroup 1 3 5 6 10 11 12 13 14 • Positive distinctiveness

Linguistic inter-group bias • In-group protective motivation • Motivation to preserve and maintain a positive view of the ingroup • Black sheep effect (Yzerbyt et al. ) – Negative behavior – Harsher judgment if the actor = ingroup member than = outgroup member

Linguistic inter-group bias • DAV IAV SV ADJ? Positive behavior In-group Out-group Negative behavior

Linguistic inter-group bias In-group Positive behavior abstract Negative behavior concrete Out-group concrete abstract

Linguistic inter-group bias: media analyses • Tel Aviv vs. Virtus Varese • Negative (prejudice) slogan towards the Tel Aviv team • Negative behavior performed by the Italian group

Linguistic inter-group bias: media analyses • Newspapers: – Italian – Jewish • Target: – The victim – The aggressor

Linguistic inter-group bias: media analyses aggressor victim DAV+IAV SV+ADJ Italian press 96% 4% 76% 24% Jewish press 75% 25% 72% 28%

Linguistic Inter-group Bias: experimental test • Palio di Siena

Linguistic Inter-group Bias: experimental test • Group membership: “contrada” • Strong commitment with the ingroup • High conflict between groups

Linguistic Inter-group Bias: experimental test Picture DAV IAV SV ADJ

Linguistic Inter-group Bias: experimental test • Favorability of behavior: positive vs. negative (IV) • Protagonist’s group membership: ingorup vs. outgroup (IV)

Linguistic Inter-group Bias: experimental test Actor: ingroup Actor: outgroup Positive behavior 2. 69 Negative behavior 2. 51 2. 47 2. 82

Linguistic Inter-group Bias: underlying mechanisms • Linguistic expectancy model: – Congruent behaviors: abstract terms – Incongruent behaviors: concrete terms – Regardless from the valence of the behavior • Similar pattern for positive and negative congruent behaviors = abstract • Similar pattern for positive and negative behaviors = concrete

Linguistic Inter-group Bias: underlying mechanisms • Ingroup protective motivation: – Positive ingroup behaviors and negative outgroup behaviors: abstract terms – Negative ingroup behaviors and positive outgroup behaviors : concrete term – Regardless from the stereotype confirming/disconfimring status of the behavior.

Linguistic Category Model • Perpetuation of the stereotypes • Regardless from their valence by means of grammatical structures

Linguistic Inter-group Bias: underlying mechanisms • Linguistic expectancy model or ingroup protective motivation? – Maass et al. 1995

Procedure • Target group: – Northern (N) vs. southern (S) – Pretest for positive/negative and typical/atypical traits associated to N an S

Experimental material • Positive and negative (shared) stereotypes Positive Negative Northern Emancipation Industriousness Hospitality Warmth Southern Materialism Intolerance Intrusiveness Sexism

Experimental plan • Participants: Northern vs. Southern (IV) • Protagonists’ membership: Northern vs. Southern (IV) • Behavioral valence: Positive vs. negative (IV) • Behavioral status: N-typical vs. S-typical (IV)

Experimental Plan • 2(participants) x 2(protagonists) x 2 (behavioral valence) x 2(behavioral status)

Hypothesis: LCM • protagonist X behavioral status interaction N-typical S-typical Northern Abstract Concrete Southern Concrete Abstract

Hypotheses: LIB • Protagonists X behavioral valence interaction ingroup positive Abstract outgroup Concrete negative Concrete Abstract

Results N-typical S-typical Northern 3. 05 2. 83 Southern 2. 99 3. 14