1 / 23

Bastian Lücke, Thomas Kessler, Amélie Mummendey, Anne Berthold

“They shouldn´t” or “Thou shalt not”: The impact of minimal or maximal goal-type on explicit negative intergroup behaviour. Bastian Lücke, Thomas Kessler, Amélie Mummendey, Anne Berthold.

sharla
Download Presentation

Bastian Lücke, Thomas Kessler, Amélie Mummendey, Anne Berthold

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. “They shouldn´t” or “Thou shalt not”:The impact of minimal or maximal goal-type on explicit negative intergroup behaviour Bastian Lücke, Thomas Kessler, Amélie Mummendey, Anne Berthold

  2. Intro Theory Paradigm Study I Study II Study III Summary Prospect Explicit negative behavior towards outgroups Introduction Aims of the research: 1. Distinction between minimal and maximal goals (goal-type) as factor affecting explicit negative behavior towards outgroups. 2. Experimental study of explicit negative behavior towards outgroups (research paradigm).

  3. Intro Theory Paradigm Study I Study II Study III Summary Prospect Explicit negative behavior towards outgroups Theory: Minimal and maximal goals The distinction between minimal and maximal goals: (Kessler, Neumann, Mummendey, Berthold, Schubert & Waldzus, submitted; Fritsche, Kessler, Mummendey & Neumann, 2009; Berthold, Mummendey, Kessler & Lücke, submitted) Example Groups: Economists and Social Psychologists Goal: No deception in experimental studies (e.g. Cook & Yamagishi, 2008; Hertwig and Ortmann, 2002) Minimal goal: NO DECEPTION whatsoever (dichotomous evaluation). Maximal goal: As little deception as possible (graded evaluation).

  4. Intro Theory Paradigm Study I Study II Study III Summary Prospect Explicit negative behavior towards outgroups Deception Example: Minimal goal Maximal goal additional information no deception some deception massive deception

  5. Intro Theory Paradigm Study I Study II Study III Summary Prospect Explicit negative behavior towards outgroups Definition goal-types Maximal goal: Goal that should be achieved as much as possible → graded evaluation. Minimal goal: Goal that can either be achieved or not → dichotomous evaluation. Minmax Hypothesis (H1) More explicit negative behavior is shown by members of an IG if a goal is violated by the OG that is represented by a members of the IG as a minimal goal, less negative behavior is shown if the violated goal is represented as a maximal goal. Moral Outrage Hypothesis (H2) The impact of goal-type on negative behavior by members of an IG towards the deviant OG is mediated by moral outrage towards the OG.

  6. Intro Theory Paradigm Study I Study II Study III Summary Prospect Explicit negative behavior towards outgroups Manipulation of goal-type Public Good Game Contribution rate Minimal goal Maximal goal 100 % 60 % 50 % 0 %

  7. Intro Theory Paradigm Study I Study II Study III Summary Prospect Explicit negative behavior towards outgroups Study I • Goal: Making money by contributing a share of the initial endowment Maximal goal condition: Gradual Public Good Game Contribute as much as possible. Minimal goal condition: Step level Public Good Game Threshold: 60 %. IG OG - Minimal groups: Other 2 IG players contribute more than 60 % Entire OG contributes less than 60 % - Exact amount of the initial endowment uncertain - Exact same contributions of other 5 co-players in both conditions!

  8. Intro Theory Paradigm Study I Study II Study III Summary Prospect Explicit negative behavior towards outgroups Study I Minimal goal condition: 62 %; SD=22,98 Contributions: Maximal goal condition: 77 %; SD=14,26 New DV: The „lottery item“ → Generalized social exclusion Identification: M=5.29; SD=1.03 (Cronbachs α=.94) Monetary punishment / identification r=.233, n.s. Moral outrage / identification: r=.360, p=.012 Exclusion (lottery item) / identification r=.394, p=.006

  9. Intro Theory Paradigm Study I Study II Study III Summary Prospect Explicit negative behavior towards outgroups Study I: Results Moral outrage towards OG (Cronbachs α=.92) Monetary punishment of OG-members Minimal goal M = 3.19 SD = 2.06 Maximal goal M = 2.15 SD = 1.84 Minimal goal M = 4.46 SD = 2.00 Maximal goal M = 3.45 SD = 1.92 F (1, 46) = 4.055, p = .025, η2 = .08 F (1, 46) = 3.124, p = .042, η2 = 0.06

  10. Intro Theory Paradigm Study I Study II Study III Summary Prospect Explicit negative behavior towards outgroups Study I: Results Social Exclusion (lottery-item) Exclusion (from future rounds) Minimal goal M = 4.54 SD = 2.34 Maximal goal M = 3.09 SD = 1.90 Minimal goal M = 5.69 SD = 1.67 Maximal goal M = 4.86 SD = 1.55 F (1, 46) = 5.411, p = .012, η2 = .11 F (1, 46) = 3.133, p = .042, η2 = .06 Monetary punishment / exclusion (future rounds): r=.692, p<.001 Monetary punishment / exclusion (lottery item): r=.320, p=.026 Exclusion (future rounds) / exclusion (lottery item): r=.320, p=.026

  11. Intro Theory Paradigm Study I Study II Study III Summary Prospect Explicit negative behavior towards outgroups Study I: Criticism Conceptual differences between payoff matrices in a gradual public good game and a step-level public good game Payoffs from Public Good Individual payoff Individual payoff step-level gradual Δ p1 Δ p1 Δ p2 average contribution rate average contribution rate Conceptual difference, even if payoffs and Δ p1 are kept constant!

  12. Intro Theory Paradigm Study I Study II Study III Summary Prospect Explicit negative behavior towards outgroups Study II Framing of goaltype Exact same – gradual – payoff matrix in both goaltype-conditions. Only difference: Group goal that participants are supposed to suggest is either framed as minimal or maximal.

  13. Intro Theory Paradigm Study I Study II Study III Summary Prospect Explicit negative behavior towards outgroups Study II: Results Participants contributions: Minimal goal condition: 63 % (SD=19.84) Maximal goal condition: 75 % (SD=14.10) Moral outrage towards OG (Cronbachs α=.83) Max M = 2.41 SD = 1.35 Min M = 3.43 SD = 1.76 F (1, 46) = 4.991, p = .015, η2 = .10

  14. Intro Theory Paradigm Study I Study II Study III Summary Prospect Explicit negative behavior towards outgroups Study II: Results Monetary punishment of OG-members Social exclusion of OG-members Min M = 5.38 SD = 1.38 Max M = 4.35 SD = 1.64 Min M = 4.79 SD = 1.79 Max M = 3.57 SD = 1.95 F (1,46) = 5.422, p = .012, η2 = .11 F (1,46) = 5.044, p = .015, η2 = .10 Monetary punishment & social exclusion: r = .487, p = .001

  15. Intro Theory Paradigm Study I Study II Study III Summary Prospect Explicit negative behavior towards outgroups Studies I – III: Summary Combined sample Similar experimental design and the same hypotheses and dv - No interactions between the factors „study“ and „goal-type“ - No significant differences over the 3 studies with regard to level of identification, negative emotions towards OG, social exclusion, contribution; (exception: punishment)

  16. Intro Theory Paradigm Study I Study II Study III Summary Prospect Explicit negative behavior towards outgroups Studies I – III: Summary Effect of goal-type on moral outrage towards OG: F (1, 153) = 14.27, p < .001, η2 = .09 Effect of goal-type on social exclusion of members of the OG: F (1, 153) = 10.20, p = .002, η2 = .08 Effect of goal-type on monetary punishment of the OG: F (1, 153) = 14.25, p < .001, η2 = .09 Behavioral measures: „Monetary punishment“ and „social exclusion“: r = .577, p < .001

  17. Intro Theory Paradigm Study I Study II Study III Summary Prospect Explicit negative behavior towards outgroups Studies I - III: Summary outrage towards OG β = -.293 ** β = .582 ** goal-type social exclusion β = -.251 ** (-.088 n.s.) Test of the indirect effect: Bootstrapping (N=2000) b=-.68, p=.0006, BCa(95%)=[-1.0523,-.3257].

  18. Intro Theory Paradigm Study I Study II Study III Summary Prospect Explicit negative behavior towards outgroups Studies I - III: Summary outrage towards OG β = -.293 ** β = .534 ** goal-type monetary punishment β = -.293 ** (-.149 *) Test of the indirect effect: Bootstrapping (N=2000) b=-.56, p=.0009, BCa(95%)=[-1.0583,-.3182].

  19. Intro Theory Paradigm Study I Study II Study III Summary Prospect Explicit negative behavior towards outgroups VII Summary • Working experimental paradigm to research explicit negative • behavior towards OG-members - H1: Minimal goal-representation leads to more explicit negative behavior towards the OG than a maximal goal-representation H2 : This relation is mediated by moral outrage towards the outgroup. • Several replications of these results, excluding possible influence of • the research paradigm

  20. Intro Theory Paradigm Study I Study II Study III Summary Prospect Explicit negative behavior towards outgroups Thank You!

  21. Intro Theory Paradigm Study I Study II Study III Summary Prospect Explicit negative behavior towards outgroups Study I Contributions: Minimal goal condition: 71 %; SD=14,37 Maximal goal condition: 76 %; SD=21,61 Cronbachs α=.91 Identification: M=5.25; SD=1.40, Monetary punishment / identification with IG: r=.279, p=.037 Moral outrage / identification with IG: r=.457, p=.001

  22. Intro Theory Paradigm Study I Study II Study III Summary Prospect Explicit negative behavior towards outgroups Study I - Results Moral outrage towards OG (Cronbachs α=.78) Monetary punishment Minimal goal Maximal goal Minimal goal Maximal goal M = 4.53 SD = 2.06 M = 3.30 SD = 1.97 M = 3.77 SD = 1.53 M = 2.92 SD = 1.50 F (1, 59) = 5.61, p = .011, η2 = .09 F (1, 59) = 4.67, p = .018, η2 = .08 No effect of relative difference in payoff on behavior and emotion!

  23. Intro Theory Paradigm Study I Study II Study III Summary Prospect Explicit negative behavior towards outgroups Study I - Criticism In minimal goal condition, goal level was given, in maximal goal condition not. → Possible influence of authority/ justification/ attribution. Study II Self selection of group-goal Goal selection: Participants were allegedly randomly selected to suggest a contribution between 10% and 100% as group goal. New DVs: The „lottery item“ – Generalized social exclusion Exclusion from future rounds

More Related