The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Linguistic intergroup bias: Differential expectancies or in-group protection?
Abstract
The linguistic intergroup bias describes the tendency to communicate positive in-group and negative out-group behaviors more abstractly than negative in-group and positive out-group behaviors. This article investigated whether this bias is driven by differential expectancies or by in-group protective motives. In Experiment 1, northern and southern Italian participants (N = 151) described positive and negative behaviors of northern or southern protagonists that were either congruent or incongruent with stereotypic expectancies. Regardless of valence, expectancy-congruent behaviors were described more abstractly than incongruent ones. Experiment 2 (N = 40) showed that language is used in an equally biased fashion for individuals as previously demonstrated for groups. Experiment 3 (N = 192) induced expectancies experimentally and found greater abstraction for expectancy-congruent behaviors regardless of valence. All experiments confirmed the differential expectancy approach.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“In contrast to previous studies conducted in controlled laboratory settings15,68,69, our results offer insights from a less experimentally controlled but more ecologically valid environment.”
From Generative language models exhibit social identity biases (2024) · cites this paper as [69]
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Hilton, J. L., & von Hippel, W. (1996) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.47.1.237 · Cited by 1,118
Kunda, Z., & Spencer, S. J. (2003) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.522 · Cited by 553
Beware of samples! A cognitive-ecological sampling approach to judgment biases.
Fiedler, K. (2000) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.107.4.659 · Cited by 480
Ingroup Bias and Self-Esteem: A Meta-Analysis
Aberson, C. L., Healy, M. R., & Romero, V. L. (2000) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0402_04 · Cited by 359
What do i think you're doing? Action identification and mind attribution.
Kozak, M. N., Marsh, A. A., & Wegner, D. M. (2006) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.543 · Cited by 275
Metadata
- Authors
- Maass, A., Milesi, A., Zabbini, S., & Stahlberg, D.
- Affiliations
- University of Padua (IT)
- Venue
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
- Published
- 1995
- Volume
- 68
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 116-126
- ISSN
- 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1315
- OpenAlex
- W4247340923
- Cited by
- 175
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 11
- FWCI
- 39.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Power and Status Dynamics
- Keywords
- linguistic intergroup bias, intergroup communication, abstract language
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Humans, Italy, Language, Peer Group, Pilot Projects, Schools, Self Concept, Social Desirability, Stereotyped Behavior, Students, Verbal Behavior
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
