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

2. 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)

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

4. 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)

5. 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

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

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

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

9. 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

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

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

12. 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

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

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

15. Linguistic Inter-group Bias: experimental test
Palio di Siena

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

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

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

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

20. 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

21. 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.

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

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

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

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

26. 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)

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

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

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

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