Visualizing minimal ingroup and outgroup faces: Implications for impressions, attitudes, and behavior

Kyle G. Ratner, Ron Dotsch, Daniel H J Wigboldus, Ad van Knippenberg, David M. Amodio

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

More than 40 years of research have shown that people favor members of their ingroup in their impressions, attitudes, and behaviors. Here, we propose that people also form different mental images of minimal ingroup and outgroup members, and we test the hypothesis that differences in these mental images contribute to the well-established biases that arise from minimal group categorization. In Study 1, participants were assigned to 1 of 2 groups using a classic minimal group paradigm. Next, a reverse correlation image classification procedure was used to create visual renderings of ingroup and outgroup face representations. Subsequently, a 2nd sample naive to the face generation stage rated these faces on a series of trait dimensions. The results indicated that the ingroup face was significantly more likely than the outgroup face to elicit favorable impressions (e.g., trusting, caring, intelligent, attractive). Extending this finding, Study 2 revealed that ingroup face representations elicited more favorable implicitly measured attitudes than did outgroup representations, and Study 3 showed that ingroup faces were trusted more than outgroup faces during an economic game. Finally, Study 4 demonstrated that facial physiognomy associated with trustworthiness more closely resembled the facial structure of the average ingroup than outgroup face representation. Together, these studies suggest that minimal group distinctions can elicit different mental representations, and that this visual bias is sufficient to elicit ingroup favoritism in impressions, attitudes and behaviors.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)897-911
Number of pages15
JournalJournal of Personality and Social Psychology
Volume106
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - 2014

Fingerprint

outgroup
Group
Physiognomy
trustworthiness
trend
paradigm
Economics
economics
Research

Keywords

  • Face processing
  • Ingroup favoritism
  • Mental representation
  • Minimal group paradigm
  • Reverse correlation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Social Psychology
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Visualizing minimal ingroup and outgroup faces : Implications for impressions, attitudes, and behavior. / Ratner, Kyle G.; Dotsch, Ron; Wigboldus, Daniel H J; Knippenberg, Ad van; Amodio, David M.

In: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 106, No. 6, 2014, p. 897-911.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Ratner, Kyle G. ; Dotsch, Ron ; Wigboldus, Daniel H J ; Knippenberg, Ad van ; Amodio, David M. / Visualizing minimal ingroup and outgroup faces : Implications for impressions, attitudes, and behavior. In: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2014 ; Vol. 106, No. 6. pp. 897-911.
@article{de0a817b2c9641cd851c56873fbac197,
title = "Visualizing minimal ingroup and outgroup faces: Implications for impressions, attitudes, and behavior",
abstract = "More than 40 years of research have shown that people favor members of their ingroup in their impressions, attitudes, and behaviors. Here, we propose that people also form different mental images of minimal ingroup and outgroup members, and we test the hypothesis that differences in these mental images contribute to the well-established biases that arise from minimal group categorization. In Study 1, participants were assigned to 1 of 2 groups using a classic minimal group paradigm. Next, a reverse correlation image classification procedure was used to create visual renderings of ingroup and outgroup face representations. Subsequently, a 2nd sample naive to the face generation stage rated these faces on a series of trait dimensions. The results indicated that the ingroup face was significantly more likely than the outgroup face to elicit favorable impressions (e.g., trusting, caring, intelligent, attractive). Extending this finding, Study 2 revealed that ingroup face representations elicited more favorable implicitly measured attitudes than did outgroup representations, and Study 3 showed that ingroup faces were trusted more than outgroup faces during an economic game. Finally, Study 4 demonstrated that facial physiognomy associated with trustworthiness more closely resembled the facial structure of the average ingroup than outgroup face representation. Together, these studies suggest that minimal group distinctions can elicit different mental representations, and that this visual bias is sufficient to elicit ingroup favoritism in impressions, attitudes and behaviors.",
keywords = "Face processing, Ingroup favoritism, Mental representation, Minimal group paradigm, Reverse correlation",
author = "Ratner, {Kyle G.} and Ron Dotsch and Wigboldus, {Daniel H J} and Knippenberg, {Ad van} and Amodio, {David M.}",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1037/a0036498",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "106",
pages = "897--911",
journal = "Journal of Personality and Social Psychology",
issn = "0022-3514",
publisher = "American Psychological Association Inc.",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Visualizing minimal ingroup and outgroup faces

T2 - Implications for impressions, attitudes, and behavior

AU - Ratner, Kyle G.

AU - Dotsch, Ron

AU - Wigboldus, Daniel H J

AU - Knippenberg, Ad van

AU - Amodio, David M.

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - More than 40 years of research have shown that people favor members of their ingroup in their impressions, attitudes, and behaviors. Here, we propose that people also form different mental images of minimal ingroup and outgroup members, and we test the hypothesis that differences in these mental images contribute to the well-established biases that arise from minimal group categorization. In Study 1, participants were assigned to 1 of 2 groups using a classic minimal group paradigm. Next, a reverse correlation image classification procedure was used to create visual renderings of ingroup and outgroup face representations. Subsequently, a 2nd sample naive to the face generation stage rated these faces on a series of trait dimensions. The results indicated that the ingroup face was significantly more likely than the outgroup face to elicit favorable impressions (e.g., trusting, caring, intelligent, attractive). Extending this finding, Study 2 revealed that ingroup face representations elicited more favorable implicitly measured attitudes than did outgroup representations, and Study 3 showed that ingroup faces were trusted more than outgroup faces during an economic game. Finally, Study 4 demonstrated that facial physiognomy associated with trustworthiness more closely resembled the facial structure of the average ingroup than outgroup face representation. Together, these studies suggest that minimal group distinctions can elicit different mental representations, and that this visual bias is sufficient to elicit ingroup favoritism in impressions, attitudes and behaviors.

AB - More than 40 years of research have shown that people favor members of their ingroup in their impressions, attitudes, and behaviors. Here, we propose that people also form different mental images of minimal ingroup and outgroup members, and we test the hypothesis that differences in these mental images contribute to the well-established biases that arise from minimal group categorization. In Study 1, participants were assigned to 1 of 2 groups using a classic minimal group paradigm. Next, a reverse correlation image classification procedure was used to create visual renderings of ingroup and outgroup face representations. Subsequently, a 2nd sample naive to the face generation stage rated these faces on a series of trait dimensions. The results indicated that the ingroup face was significantly more likely than the outgroup face to elicit favorable impressions (e.g., trusting, caring, intelligent, attractive). Extending this finding, Study 2 revealed that ingroup face representations elicited more favorable implicitly measured attitudes than did outgroup representations, and Study 3 showed that ingroup faces were trusted more than outgroup faces during an economic game. Finally, Study 4 demonstrated that facial physiognomy associated with trustworthiness more closely resembled the facial structure of the average ingroup than outgroup face representation. Together, these studies suggest that minimal group distinctions can elicit different mental representations, and that this visual bias is sufficient to elicit ingroup favoritism in impressions, attitudes and behaviors.

KW - Face processing

KW - Ingroup favoritism

KW - Mental representation

KW - Minimal group paradigm

KW - Reverse correlation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84900839250&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84900839250&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1037/a0036498

DO - 10.1037/a0036498

M3 - Article

C2 - 24841095

AN - SCOPUS:84900839250

VL - 106

SP - 897

EP - 911

JO - Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

JF - Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

SN - 0022-3514

IS - 6

ER -