Inaccurate group meta-perceptions drive negative out-group attributions in competitive contexts

Article metrics

Abstract

Across seven experiments and one survey (n = 4,282), people consistently overestimated out-group negativity towards the collective behaviour of their in-group. This negativity bias in group meta-perception was present across multiple competitive (but not cooperative) intergroup contexts and appears to be yoked to group psychology more generally; we observed negativity bias for estimation of out-group, anonymized-group and even fellow in-group members’ perceptions. Importantly, in the context of US politics, greater inaccuracy was associated with increased belief that the out-group is motivated by purposeful obstructionism. However, an intervention that informed participants of the inaccuracy of their beliefs reduced negative out-group attributions, and was more effective for those whose group meta-perceptions were more inaccurate. In sum, we highlight a pernicious bias in social judgements of how we believe ‘they’ see ‘our’ behaviour, demonstrate how such inaccurate beliefs can exacerbate intergroup conflict and provide an avenue for reducing the negative effects of inaccuracy.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Raw data from Experiment 1 by condition and dependent variable.
Fig. 2: Raw data from Experiment 4 by condition and dependent variable.
Fig. 3: Distributions, Pearson correlations and scatterplots for the three GMP ratings and beliefs about out-group obstructionism in Study 5.
Fig. 4: Effect of condition on obstructionism, by accuracy, in Experiment 6.

Data availability

All data that supported the findings of this study are publicly available in CSV format on the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/zhysa/.

Code availability

All analyses reported in this study used the statistical software R (v.3.6.1). All R files are publicly available on the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/zhysa/.

References

  1. 1.

    Carlson, E. N. Meta-accuracy and relationship quality: weighing the costs and benefits of knowing what people really think about you. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 111, 250–264 (2016).

  2. 2.

    Carlson, E. N., Vazire, S. & Furr, R. M. Meta-insight: do people really know how others see them? J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 101, 831–846 (2011).

  3. 3.

    Vazire, S. & Carlson, E. N. Others sometimes know us better than we know ourselves. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 20, 104–108 (2011).

  4. 4.

    Vorauer, J. D., Main, K. J. & O’Connell, G. B. How do individuals expect to be viewed by members of lower status groups? Content and implications of meta-stereotypes. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 75, 21 (1998).

  5. 5.

    Vorauer, J. D., Hunter, A. J., Main, K. J. & Roy, S. A. Meta-stereotype activation: evidence from indirect measures for specific evaluative concerns experienced by members of dominant groups in intergroup interaction. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 78, 690–707 (2000).

  6. 6.

    Frey, F. E. & Tropp, L. R. Being seen as individuals versus as group members: extending research on metaperception to intergroup contexts. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 10, 265–280 (2006).

  7. 7.

    Kteily, N., Hodson, G. & Bruneau, E. They see us as less than human: metadehumanization predicts intergroup conflict via reciprocal dehumanization. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 110, 343–370 (2016).

  8. 8.

    Sigelman, L. & Tuch, S. A. Metastereotypes: blacks’ perceptions of whites’ stereotypes of blacks. Public Opin. Q. 61, 87 (1997).

  9. 9.

    Finchilescu, G. Intergroup anxiety in interracial interaction: the role of prejudice and metastereotypes. J. Soc. Issues 66, 334–351 (2010).

  10. 10.

    Klein, O. & Azzi, A. E. The strategic confirmation of meta-stereotypes: how group members attempt to tailor an out-group’s representation of themselves. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 279–293 (2001).

  11. 11.

    Waytz, A., Young, L. L. & Ginges, J. Motive attribution asymmetry for love vs. hate drives intractable conflict. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 15687–15692 (2014).

  12. 12.

    Lau, T., Morewedge, C. K. & Cikara, M. Overcorrection for social-categorization information moderates impact bias in affective forecasting. Psychol. Sci. 27, 1340–1351 (2016).

  13. 13.

    Goldstein, N. J., Vezich, I. S. & Shapiro, J. R. Perceived perspective taking: when others walk in our shoes. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 106, 941–960 (2014).

  14. 14.

    Saguy, T. & Kteily, N. Inside the opponent’s head: perceived losses in group position predict accuracy in metaperceptions between groups. Psychol. Sci. 22, 951–958 (2011).

  15. 15.

    Robinson, R. J., Keltner, D., Ward, A. & Ross, L. Actual versus assumed differences in construal: ‘Naive realism’ in intergroup perception and conflict. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 68, 404–417 (1995).

  16. 16.

    Chambers, J. R. & Melnyk, D. Why do I hate thee? Conflict misperceptions and intergroup mistrust. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 32, 1295–1311 (2006).

  17. 17.

    Chambers, J. R., Baron, R. S. & Inman, M. L. Misperceptions in intergroup conflict. Psychol. Sci. 17, 38–45 (2006).

  18. 18.

    Westfall, J., Van Boven, L., Chambers, J. R. & Judd, C. M. Perceiving political polarization in the United States: party identity strength and attitude extremity exacerbate the perceived partisan divide. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 10, 145–158 (2015).

  19. 19.

    Bush, G. W. President Bush’s address to a joint session of Congress and the nation. The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/attacked/transcripts/bushaddress_092001.html (20 September 2001).

  20. 20.

    Sunstein, C. R. Why they hate us: The role of social dynamics. Harvard J. Law Public Policy 25, 429–440 (2002).

  21. 21.

    Zakaria, F. The politics of rage: why do they hate us? Newsweek. https://www.newsweek.com/politics-rage-why-do-they-hate-us-154345 (14 October 2001).

  22. 22.

    Merskin, D. The construction of Arabs as enemies: post-September 11 discourse of George W. Bush. Mass Commun. Soc. 7, 157–175 (2004).

  23. 23.

    Rogers, T. & Feller, A. Reducing student absences at scale by targeting parents’ misbeliefs. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2, 335–342 (2018).

  24. 24.

    Nyhan, B. & Reifler, J. The roles of information deficits and identity threat in the prevalence of misperceptions. J. Elect. Public Opin. Parties 29, 1–23 (2018).

  25. 25.

    Eisenkraft, N., Elfenbein, H. A. & Kopelman, S. We know who likes us, but not who competes against us:dyadic meta-accuracy among work colleagues. Psychol. Sci. 28, 233–241 (2017).

  26. 26.

    Reeder, G. D., Vonk, R., Ronk, M. J., Ham, J. & Lawrence, M. Dispositional attribution: multiple inferences about motive-related traits. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 86, 530–544 (2004).

  27. 27.

    Miller, D. T. & Nelson, L. D. Seeing approach motivation in the avoidance behavior of others: implications for an understanding of pluralistic ignorance. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 83, 1066–1075 (2002).

  28. 28.

    Insko, C. A., Schopler, J., Hoyle, R. H., Dardis, G. J. & Graetz, K. A. Individual-group discontinuity as a function of fear and greed. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 58, 68–79 (1990).

  29. 29.

    Wildschut, T., Pinter, B., Vevea, J. L., Insko, C. A. & Schopler, J. Beyond the group mind: a quantitative review of the interindividual-intergroup discontinuity effect. Psychol. Bull. 129, 698–722 (2003).

  30. 30.

    Pemberton, M. B., Insko, C. A. & Schopler, J. Memory for and experience of differential competitive behavior of individuals and groups. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 71, 14 (1996).

  31. 31.

    Enders, A. M. & Armaly, M. T. The differential effects of actual and perceived polarization. Polit. Behav. 41, 815–839 (2018).

  32. 32.

    Carlson, E. N., Furr, R. M. & Vazire, S. Do we know the first impressions we make? Evidence for idiographic meta-accuracy and calibration of first impressions. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 1, 94–98 (2010).

  33. 33.

    Stern, C. & Kleiman, T. Know thy outgroup: promoting accurate judgments of political attitude differences through a conflict mindset. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 6, 950–958 (2015).

  34. 34.

    Stroessner, S. J. & Dweck, C. S. in Social Perception: From Individuals to Groups (eds Stroessner, S. J. & Sherman, J. W.) 177–196 (Psychology Press, 2015).

  35. 35.

    Ames, D. & Fiske, S. Perceived intent motivates people to magnify observed harms. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 3599–3605 (2015).

  36. 36.

    Goldenberg, A., Saguy, T. & Halperin, E. How group-based emotions are shaped by collective emotions: evidence for emotional transfer and emotional burden. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 107, 581–596 (2014).

  37. 37.

    Schönbrodt, F. D. & Perugini, M. At what sample size do correlations stabilize? J. Res. Personal. 47, 609–612 (2013).

  38. 38.

    Brooks, M. et al. glmmTMB balances speed and flexibility among packages for zero-inflated generalized linear mixed modeling. R J. 9, 378–400 (2017).

  39. 39.

    Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B. & Christensen, R. H. B. lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. J. Stat. Softw. 82, 1–26 (2017).

  40. 40.

    Lenth, R. emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. R package version 1.4. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans (2019).

  41. 41.

    Smithson, M. & Verkuilen, J. A better lemon squeezer? Maximum-likelihood regression with beta-distributed dependent variables. Psychol. Methods 11, 54–71 (2006).

  42. 42.

    Patil, I. & Powell, C. ggstatsplot: “ggplot2” based plots with statistical details. R package version 0.0.12. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ggstatsplot (2018).

  43. 43.

    Lüdecke, D. sjPlot: Data visualization for statistics in social science. R package version 2.7.0. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=sjPlot (2019).

  44. 44.

    Revelle, W. psych: Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research. R Package version 1.8.12. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych (2018).

Download references

Acknowledgements

Work on this project by M.C. was supported by a National Science Foundation Award (no. BCS-1551559). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript. We thank members of the Harvard Intergroup Neuroscience Lab, Sidanius Lab and attendees at the 2018 East Coast Doctoral Conference for their helpful comments, Z. Ingbretsen and N. Hunt for help with data collection and I. Zahn and S. Worthington for statistical assistance.

Author information

J.L. and M.C. designed all experiments and wrote the manuscript. J.L. completed data collection and analysis under the supervision of M.C.

Correspondence to Jeffrey Lees or Mina Cikara.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Primary handling editor: Aisha Bradshaw

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary notes, figures, tables, methods and analysis.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lees, J., Cikara, M. Inaccurate group meta-perceptions drive negative out-group attributions in competitive contexts. Nat Hum Behav (2019) doi:10.1038/s41562-019-0766-4

Download citation