Strong group identification distorts even objective perception of ingroup wrongdoing

Evidence

So far we have presented evidence that involvement in a group membership can affect the subjective interpretation of and responses to historical events. Involvement in a group membership can also lead people to differ in their subjective perceptions of present-day events. For example, Hastorf and Cantril (1954) observed how members of different groups perceived a game of football quite differently depending on group membership. In such cases, group membership influences subjective perceptions of ambiguous events. An interesting study by Bender (1970) shows how involvement in a particular identity may also change perceptions of objective facts. In that research, participants were shown a video of a demonstration in which three of the four policemen depicted hit a demonstrator. People who were expected to be high in involvement with the Netherlands (i.e., military trainees) were contrasted with people who were predicted to be low in Dutch involvement (mainly psychology students). The military trainees were slightly less likely to indicate the correct number of three policemen (39 percent) compared to the university students (45 percent). In addition, the military trainees were more likely to underestimate the number of policemen (42 percent) who had hit a demonstrator than were the university students (26 percent). This study supports the notion that, even in terms of the encoding of behavior, people’s identification with the perpetrator group – as reflected in whether or not they belonged to the military – triggers a motivation to perceive events in an ingroup-serving manner. In other words, motivation may drive the perception of the subjective elements of an event (e.g., were the acts fair or not?), as well as the objective elements of an event (e.g., the number of policemen who hit a demonstrator). — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt, 699

One’s attitude toward the ingroup as being positive or negative is likely to moderate the extent to which the actions of other members of one’s ingroup are viewed as positive or negative as well (see Branscombe et al., 2002). In other words, those who are highly identified with their ingroup are motivated to engage in group-serving attributions when perceiving behaviors carried out by fellow group members, because group identity is a source of positive self-regard. Research on the attributions people make for the negative actions of their ingroup confirms that those who are highly identified with their ingroup are less likely to make internal attributions and are more likely to make external attributions for the negative actions of their ingroup compared to those who are less identified with their ingroup (see Doosje & Branscombe, 2003) 40 Brian Lickel, Toni Schmader, and Marchelle Barquissau While much of the literature on group serving attributions examines attributions for group outcomes, other research has examined biased perception of the actions committed by ingroup members against outgroups. — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt, 303

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the ingroup-serving distortion literature that the later Roccas glorification/attachment measures will operationalize; also parallels perception-biasing evidence from group-identification research like Hastorf and Cantril 1954. — connects to: Stronger group identification correlates near zero with ingroup bias — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 441; Ingroup identification only predicts bias under specific moderating conditions — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 448; Strong ingroup identification may increase intragroup focus rather than outgroup hostility — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years…, 468 (+7 more)
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt: International…, 699; Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt: International…, 303

Broader Connections

• Highly identified group members minimize collective guilt by morally reinterpreting ingroup wrongs #expands (0.88) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 2278
• Group source credibility determines whether high identifiers accept versus dismiss negative ingroup history. #expands (0.85) — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt, 704
• Stronger group identification correlates near zero with ingroup bias #contradicts (0.82) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 441
• High group identification alone need not produce ingroup bias or discrimination #contradicts (0.80) — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt, 862
• Identification mode shapes whether ingroup versus outgroup criticism triggers collective guilt #expands (0.80) — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt, 721
• Strong ingroup identification may increase intragroup focus rather than outgroup hostility #complicates (0.78) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 468
• Group members’ responses to threats to group image depend on how strongly they identify #expands (0.78) — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt, 1052
• Ingroup identification only predicts bias under specific moderating conditions #qualifies (0.75) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 448