Cognitive styles and contextual variables as the factors of ingroup bias and outgroup stereotyping in the perception of artificial social groups

The problem considered in the article is connected with the establishment of interrelations between cognitive styles and subjectively constructed contextual factors in the process of social perception. Hypotheses about the presence of statistically significant effects and interactions of these factors on the variables of ingroup bias and outgroup stereotyping are tested. Participants (103 students, including 24 males and 79 females, from 17 to 22 years old, M = 19,29, SD = 0,77) were presented with specially constructed target text contained information on artificial social groups, as well as tools for measuring the bias, stereotyping and cognitive styles. It was found that the field-dependency, rigid control, impulsiveness and cognitive simplicity contributed to the stereotyping of the Other (p <0.08 ÷ 0.001), but not to the ingroup bias. It was shown that the growth of field-independence and flexible cognitive control decreased stereotyping faster, if the information about the social groups was of little importance for the subject (p <0,07 ÷ 0,05). The obtained facts indicate that the stereotyping has rather cognitive and the bias presumably motivational causality.

1. Baleva M.V., Gasimova V.A., Kovaleva G.V. Osobennosti struktury tekstov, soderzhashchikh informatsiyu o sotsial’nykh gruppakh (po materialam kontent-analiza Permskikh SMI) [Structural features of the texts containing information about social groups (based on the content analysis of Perm mediam)]. Materialy dvenadtsatoi Mezhdunarodnoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii “Aktual’nye voprosy psikhologii” (g. Krasnodar, 6 dekabrya 2016 g.) [Proceedings of the Twelfht International Scientific and Practical Conference “Actual issues of psychology”]. Krasnodar: “Apriori” Publ, 2016, pp. 63—70.
2. Baleva M.V., Kornienko D.S. Informatsionnaya predvzyatost’ SMI i politicheskaya vklyuchennost’ lichnosti kak faktory otsenki predstavitelei etnicheskikh grupp [Informational bias of media and political involvement of personality as assessment factors of the ethnic groups’ representatives]. Vestnik Permskogo gosudarstvennogo instituta iskusstva i kul’tury [ Bulletin of Perm State Institute of Art and Culture], 2011, no. 10, pp. 123—133.
3. Bezmenov I.V. Vzaimosvyaz’ sotsial’noi pertseptsii s kognitivnymi stilyami studentov vuzov: dis. … kand. psikhol. nauk. [The relationship of social perception and cognitive styles of university students. Ph. D. (Psychology) diss.]. Moscow, 2007. 192 p.
4. Kolga V.A. Differentsial’no-psikhologicheskoe issledovanie kognitivnogo stilya i obuchaemosti: dis. ... kand. psikhol. nauk. [Differential-psychological study of cognitive style and learning. Ph. D. (Psychology) diss.]. Leningrad, 1976. 186 p.
5. Kornienko D.S., Baleva M.V. Teoreticheskie osnovaniya kompleksnoi modeli vliyaniya ekstraetnicheskikh i intraetnicheskikh faktorov na parametry mezhetnicheskogo vzaimodeistviya [The theoretical basis of complex model of the impact of intraetnic and extraetnic factors on parameters of interethnic interaction]. Istoriko-kriticheskie obzory i sovremennye issledovaniya [Psychology. Historical and critical reviews and current research, Moscow: ANALITIKA RODIS Publ., ], 2012, no. 5—6, pp. 99—111.
6. Meshkova N.V. Situativnye i lichnostnye osobennosti mezhgruppovoi predubezhdennosti: Avtoref. diss. ... kand. psikhol. nauk. [Situational and personal factors of intergroup bias. Ph. D. (Psychology) Thesis]. Moscow, 2009. 23 p.
7. Pustyl’nik E.I. Statisticheskie metody analiza i obrabotki nablyudenii [Statistical methods for the analysis and processing of observations]. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1968. 288 p.
8. Kholodnaya M.A. Kognitivnye stili. O prirode individual’nogo uma [Cognitive styles. On the nature of the individual mind]. St. Petersburg: Piter Publ., 2004. 384 p.
9. Khukhlaev O.E. Psikhologiya natsionalizma v zarubezhnykh issledovaniyakh [Psychology of nationalism in foreign research]. Sotsial’naya psikhologiya i obshchestvo [Social Psychology and Society], 2012, no. 4, pp. 15—29. (In Russ., abstr. in Engl.).
10. Kh’ell L., Ziggler D. Teorii lichnosti: Osnovnye polozheniya, issledovaniya i primenenie [Personality theories: Basic assumptions, research, and applications]. St. Petersburg: Piter Press Publ., 1997. 608 p. (In Russ.).
11. Bianchi M., Machunsky M., Steffens M.C., Mummendey A. Like me or like us: Is ingroup projection just social projection? Experimental Psychology, 2009. Vol. 56, pp. 198—205. doi: 10.1027/1618-3169.56.3.198.
12. Bianchi M., Mummendey A., Steffens M.C., Yzerbyt V. What do you mean by “European”? Evidence of spontaneous ingroup projection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2010. Vol. 36, pp. 960—974. doi: 10.1177/0146167210367488.
13. Brigham J.C. Ethnic stereotypes. Psychological Bulletin, 1971. Vol. 76, pp. 15—38. doi: 10.1037/h0031446.
14. DeWall C., Maner J., Rouby, D. Social exclusion and early-stage interpersonal perception: Selective attention to signs of acceptance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2009. Vol. 96(4), pp. 729—741. doi: 10.1037/a0014634.
15. Dovidio J.F., Gaertner S.L. (Eds.). Prejudice, discrimination, and racism. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1986. 337 p.
16. Gerard H.B., Hoyt M. Distinctiveness of social categorization and attitude toward in-group members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1974. Vol. 29, pp. 836— 842. doi: 10.1037/h0036204.
17. Hamilton D.L., Sherman S.J., Ruvolo C.M. Stereotype-based expectancies: Effects on information processing and social behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 1990. Vol. 46, pp. 35— 60. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1990.tb01922.x.
18. Hewstone M. The “ultimate attribution error”? A review of the literature on intergroup causal attribution. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1990. Vol. 20, pp. 311—335. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420200404.
19. Machunsky M., Meiser T. Cognitive Components of ingroup projection: Prototype projection pontributes to biased prototypicality judgments in group perception. Social Psychology, 2014. Vol. 45(1), pp. 15—30. doi: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000156.
20. Mendoza-Denton R., Ayduk O., Mischel W., Shoda Y., Testa A. Person — Situation interactionism in self-encoding (I am…when…): Implications for affect regulation and social information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2001. Vol. 80(4), pp. 533—544. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.80.4.533.
21. Posten A.C., Mussweiler T. When distrust frees your mind: The stereotype-reducing effects of distrust. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2013. Vol. 105(4), pp. 567— 584. doi: 10.1037/a0033170.
22. Simon B., Hastedt C., Aufderheide B. When self-categorization makes sense: The role of meaningful social categorization in minority and majority members’ self-perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1997. Vol. 73(2), pp. 310—320. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.73.2.310.
23. Tajfel H. Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 1970. Vol. 23(2), pp. 96—102.
24. Weber J.G. The nature of ethnocentric attribution bias: In-group protection or enhancement? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1994. Vol. 30, pp. 482—504. doi: 10.1006/jesp.1994.1023.
25. Wit A.P., Kerr N.L. Me versus just us versus us all: Categorization and cooperation in nested social dilemmas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2002. Vol. 83, pp. 616—637. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.83.3.616.
26. Yuki M., Maddux W.W., Brewer M.B., Takemura K. Cross-cultural differences in relationship- and group-based trust. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2005. Vol. 31, pp. 48—62. doi: 10.1177/0146167204271305.