Making allocators accountable reduces in-group favoritism, especially among majority members

Evidence

Dobbs and Crano (2001), for example, found that merely making allocators accountable in a minimal group reward distribution task mitigated in-group favoritism, and this tendency was especially pronounced when the allocator was of majority group status. Such participants appeared unwilling to overallocate positive reinforcements to fellow majority in-group members at the expense of members of minority out-groups. Apparently, even in-group favoritism has its limits. — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1380 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

What happens when in-group members must allocate negative outcomes? Even in the absence of data, it seems reasonable to assume that when outcome valences change, distributional tendencies may be altered as well. Research suggests that this conclusion should be considered seriously and its implications for social relations carefully explored. Dobbs and Crano (2001), for example, found that merely making allocators accountable in a minimal group reward distribution task mitigated in-group favoritism, and this tendency was especially pronounced when the allocator was of majority group status. Such participants appeared unwilling to overallocate positive reinforcements to fellow majority in-group members at the expense of members of minority out-groups. Apparently, even in-group favoritism has its limits. — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1380 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Accountability and majority status suppress in-group favoritism in reward allocation. — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1380; Accountability suppresses ingroup favoritism, especially among majority members — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1380

Broader Connections

• Accountability suppresses ingroup favoritism, especially among majority members #corroborates (0.99) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1380
• Accountability and majority status suppress in-group favoritism in reward allocation. #corroborates (0.97) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1380