Linguistic inter-group bias Abstract language and inter-group context

Linguistic inter-group bias Analyses of the Linguistic Category Model within an inter-group context Inter-group context Self included in a group = ingroup Ingroup differentiated from an outgroup Social Identity Theory (SIT) Self-Categorization Theory (SCT)

Linguistic inter-group bias Self-Ingroup Identification and self-categorization Depersonalization: switching from I to We Self-stereotyping (group-to-self)

Linguistic inter-group bias Ingroup-Outgroup Inter-group differentiation Stressing the difference between the in- and the outgroup (we are different from them) Inter-group positive distinctiveness Stressing the ingroup favoritism (we are better than them)

Linguistic inter-group bias Minimal group paradimg Esthetic preference (random) assignment to a group (self-categorization) Allocation matrix test ingroup 4 6 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 outgroup 1 2 5 13

Linguistic inter-group bias fairness ingroup 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 outgroup 1 2 13

Linguistic inter-group bias Absolute gain ingroup 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 outgroup 1 3 13

Linguistic inter-group bias Relative gain Positive distinctiveness ingroup 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 outgroup 1 3 13

Linguistic inter-group bias In-group protective motivation Motivation to preserve and maintain a positive view of the ingroup Black sheep effect (Yzerbyt et al.) Negative behavior Harsher judgment if the actor = ingroup member than = outgroup member

Linguistic inter-group bias DAV IAV SV ADJ? Positive behavior Negative behavior In-group Out-group

Linguistic inter-group bias Positive behavior Negative behavior In-group abstract concrete Out-group

Linguistic inter-group bias: media analyses Tel Aviv vs. Virtus Varese Negative (prejudice) slogan towards the Tel Aviv team Negative behavior performed by the Italian group

Linguistic inter-group bias: media analyses Newspapers: Italian Jewish Target: The victim The aggressor

Linguistic inter-group bias: media analyses aggressor victim DAV+IAV SV+ADJ Italian press 96% 4% 76% 24% Jewish press 75% 25% 72% 28%

Linguistic Inter-group Bias: experimental test Palio di Siena

Linguistic Inter-group Bias: experimental test Group membership: “contrada” Strong commitment with the ingroup High conflict between groups

Linguistic Inter-group Bias: experimental test Picture DAV IAV SV ADJ

Linguistic Inter-group Bias: experimental test Favorability of behavior: positive vs. negative (IV) Protagonist’s group membership: ingorup vs. outgroup (IV)

Linguistic Inter-group Bias: experimental test Positive behavior Negative behavior Actor: ingroup 2.69 2.51 Actor: outgroup 2.47 2.82

Linguistic Inter-group Bias: underlying mechanisms Linguistic expectancy model: Congruent behaviors: abstract terms Incongruent behaviors: concrete terms Regardless from the valence of the behavior Similar pattern for positive and negative congruent behaviors = abstract Similar pattern for positive and negative behaviors = concrete

Linguistic Inter-group Bias: underlying mechanisms Ingroup protective motivation: Positive ingroup behaviors and negative outgroup behaviors: abstract terms Negative ingroup behaviors and positive outgroup behaviors : concrete term Regardless from the stereotype confirming/disconfimring status of the behavior.

Linguistic Category Model Perpetuation of the stereotypes Regardless from their valence by means of grammatical structures

Linguistic Inter-group Bias: underlying mechanisms Linguistic expectancy model or ingroup protective motivation? Maass et al. 1995

Procedure Target group: Northern (N) vs. southern (S) Pretest for positive/negative and typical/atypical traits associated to N an S

Experimental material Positive and negative (shared) stereotypes Positive Negative Northern Emancipation Industriousness Hospitality Warmth Southern Materialism Intolerance Intrusiveness Sexism

Experimental plan Participants: Northern vs. Southern (IV) Protagonists’ membership: Northern vs. Southern (IV) Behavioral valence: Positive vs. negative (IV) Behavioral status: N-typical vs. S-typical (IV)

Experimental Plan 2(participants) x 2(protagonists) x 2 (behavioral valence) x 2(behavioral status)

Hypothesis: LCM protagonist X behavioral status interaction N-typical S-typical Northern Abstract Concrete Southern

Hypotheses: LIB Protagonists X behavioral valence interaction positive negative ingroup Abstract Concrete outgroup

Results N-typical S-typical Northern 3.05 2.83 Southern 2.99 3.14