European Journal of Social Psychology

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 652–670 (2010)

Published online in Wiley InterScience

(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.747

*L

C

Special issue article

When personal identities confirm versus conflict with group identities:Evidence from an intergroup paradigm

Correspondence to: Meagan M. Patterson, Deawrence, KS 66045, USA. E-mail: mmpatter@

opyright # 2010 John Wiley & Son

MEAGAN M. PATTERSON1*, REBECCA S. BIGLER2

AND WILLIAM B. SWANN JR.2

1University of Kansas, Lawrence, USA2University of Texas at Austin, Austin, USA

Abstract

This study provides an experimental investigation of the consequences of conflict between children’s personal identities

and experimentally manipulated group identities. Elementary-school-aged children (N¼ 82, ages 5–11) attending a

summer school program rated their own academic and athletic abilities and were then randomly assigned to one of two

novel groups. Children’s views of the academic and athletic skills of the novel groups were assessed both before and after

information about the groups’ academic and athletic skills was manipulated via posters placed in their classrooms.

Following the manipulation, children’s self-views, ingroup identification, and intergroup attitudes were assessed. Results

indicated that (a) in the absence of information about the novel groups, children projected their personal identities onto

their ingroup identities, (b) children maintained their ingroup identities in the face of new information that should have

altered their ingroup identities, and (c) more positive personal identities predicted ingroup bias, which in turn predicted

happiness with one’s ingroup membership. The latter finding suggests that a tendency for children to generalize from their

idiosyncratic positive self-views, rather than an indiscriminate desire for self-enhancement or positivity, may be

responsible for ingroup bias. Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Just as people have perceptions of themselves as individuals (i.e., personal identities), they also have perceptions of the

groups of which they are members (i.e., group identities). Often personal identities agree with group identities: males often

perceive both themselves and their group as strong and skilled at math, so too females often perceive themselves and their

group as kind and skilled at reading. At times, however, individuals’ personal identities differ from their ingroup identities.

The outcome of clashes between children’s personal identities and their experimentally manipulated group identities are

the focus of this report. We were specifically interested in the impact of membership in groups that either confirmed or

conflicted with their personal identities on children’s subsequent views of themselves and their ingroup.

The process of integrating group and personal identity is unlikely to be uniform across types of groups. So, for example,

some group memberships are fixed at birth (e.g., gender), whereas others are voluntarily selected (e.g., political party). An

individual whose personal identity is discrepant from that of a voluntarily selected group might choose to leave the group,

an impossible or impractical option for a fixed group membership such as gender. In addition, some group memberships

are associated with well-known cultural stereotypes (e.g., race), whereas others carry few associations (e.g., handedness).

The integration process may well be more complex when group identities carry stereotypic associations than when they

are closer to blank slates. In this study, we sought to examine the process of integration of personal and group identities

when group membership is both (a) involuntary and fixed and (b) associated with specific traits.

partment of Psychology and Research in Education, University of Kansas, 1122 West Campus Rd.,ku.edu

s, Ltd.

Received 9 October 2009

Accepted 20 January 2010

Personal and group identities 653

The challenge of identity integration is likely to be particularly daunting for young children. Relating group and self

identities, for example, requires a multi-step inference process. First, children must understand the relevant social category and

their status as category members. Next, children must acquire knowledge of the traits associated with that particular group in

their culture, which involves the abstraction of general rules (e.g., women are kind) from exposure to individual exemplars.

They must also acquire stable views of their own traits, skills, and values. Finally, children would need to intergrate these two

sets of knowledge. Evidence suggests, however, that elementary-school-aged children are capable of such processes.

By the age of three or four, children are aware of their membership in social groups (e.g., gender and racial groups), and

across early childhood (4–7 years), they become increasingly knowledgeable about cultural stereotypes associated with

such groups (e.g., Aboud, 1988; Ruble, Martin, & Berenbaum, 2006). At the same time, childhood is marked by greatly

expanding knowledge of the self. Across the elementary school years, children increasingly come to see themselves as

possessing a unique set of traits, skills, and preferences (Harter, 2006). Importantly, there is also some evidence that children

integrate these two domains of knowledge; recent research using a cognitive confusion paradigm indicates that, by the age of 5 years,

children treat the ingroup as an aspect of the self, indicating that a process of integration has occurred (Sani & Bennett, 2009).

In the current study, we sought to examine the effects of children’s membership in groups that either confirmed or

conflicted with children’s personal identities on their self and group views. Some children undoubtedly acquire views of

themselves and their ingroup that are concordant. For example, a boy may believe himself and other males to be good at

math. Other children, in contrast, may acquire preferences, talents, or behaviors that conflict with their own or others’ views of

their group. So, for example, a girl may think of herself as highly skilled at math and then learn the cultural stereotype that

females are not especially skilled at math. How will this new knowledge affect her views of herself and her group?

THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE INTEGRATION OF PERSONAL AND GROUP IDENTITIES

Little direct empirical evidence concerning the process by which children integrate self and group identities exists;

however, several extant theories offer descriptions of the processes by which children might integrate their self and group

views. In addition, there is a broad base of empirical work that bears, albeit indirectly, on the question of how personal

identities and group stereotypes interact to shape developmental outcomes. This body of theoretical and empirical work

can be classified into two broad approaches. The first broad class includes what we call ‘‘group-identity-shapes-personal-

identity’’ approaches. Although they differ in details, these approaches are all based on the implicit or explicit assumption

that membership in social groups plays a powerful causal role in shaping individuals’ self-perceptions. The second class of

work includes what we refer to as ‘‘personal-identity-shapes-group-identity’’ approaches. These approaches are all based

on the implicit or explicit assumption that the self is an important causal agent in shaping individuals’ views of groups.

Although an exhaustive review of work falling into these categories is beyond the scope of this paper, we provide several

illustrative examples of such approaches.

GROUP-IDENTITY-SHAPES-PERSONAL-IDENTITY APPROACHES

Perhaps the most important exemplar of this approach is social identity theory (SIT; Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel & Turner, 1979,

1986). Tajfel coined the term ‘‘social identity’’ to describe the outcome of a system by which social categorization creates

and defines an individual’s personal place in society. Tajfel and Turner proposed that social identities help people to

maintain a positive and distinctive sense of self. Later work by these theorists and others posited a range of additional

motivations that drive individuals to align themselves with groups, including the enhancement of personal identities

(Abrams & Hogg, 1988), need to make sense of the world (Reynolds, Turner, & Haslam, 2000; Turner, 2000), and

reduction of uncertainty (Hogg, 2000, 2007).

Self-categorization theory (SCT; e.g., Hogg & Haines, 1996; Turner, 1975) also falls within the category of group-

identity-shapes-personal-identity models, arguing that membership in social groups leads individuals to perceive

themselves and behave in ways that are consistent with the group. That is, self-categorization theories view group identities

as exerting a dominant influence in shaping personal identities and behavior. Self-categorization theories predict, for example,

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 652–670 (2010)

DOI: 10.1002/ejsp

654 Meagan M. Patterson et al.

that a girl who learns the stereotype that her ingroup is not skilled at math will come to view herself as consistent with the

stereotype and thus fail to develop an interest in math, or begin to doubt her own math skills if such an interest is already

present. Both SIT and SCT posit that identification with the ingroup is a prerequisite for the development of ingroup bias, and

that demonstrated levels of ingroup bias will vary with the strength of ingroup identification. (See Barrett & Davis, 2008, for a

discussion of SIT- and SCT-based developmental research on racial and national group identities.)

Another exemplar of the group-identity-shapes-personal-identity approach can be found in conceptualizations of

gender role development. Several extant theoretical models posit that children’s gender role attitudes drive their gender

role behavior, a view that is consistent with SCT’s emphasis on the ways in which individuals strive to be ideal group

members (Hogg & Haines, 1996). For example, Martin and Halverson (1981) predicted that, when presented with a truck

as a possible play object, girls think, ‘‘I am a girl and this is a truck; trucks are for boys, therefore trucks are not for me.’’

The powerful influence of the group was also posited by Bussey and Bandura (1992, 1999), who argued that children’s

knowledge of gender stereotypes shapes their own preferences by means of anticipatory self-approval for stereotype-

consistent behavior and self-sanctions for stereotype-inconsistent behavior. These authors argue that children create a set

of personal behavior standards based on their observations of ingroup models and that, over time, children increasingly use

these standards to regulate their own behavior. Consistent with their claims, Bussey and Bandura (1992) reported that

preschool children gave more positive self-evaluations for engaging in sex-typed play than for engaging in cross-sex-typed

play, and furthermore, that these self-evaluations predicted children’s subsequent behaviors.

PERSONAL-IDENTITY-SHAPES-GROUP-IDENTITY APPROACHES

Like all expectancies, personal identities can have a profound impact on information processing (e.g., Shrauger &

Schoeneman, 1979; Swann, in press). One such effect has been dubbed ‘‘self-anchoring’’ (Cadinu & Rothbart, 1996). This

effect occurs when people rely on their personal identities to make guesses about the value or characteristics of the groups

to which they belong (e.g., Cadinu and Rothbart, 1996; Clement & Krueger, 2002; Otten & Epstude, 2006; Robbins &

Krueger, 2005; Rudman, Greenwald, & McGhee, 2001). Meta-analytic research on self-anchoring indicates that this effect

is particularly strong for minimal or laboratory groups (Robbins & Krueger, 2005). Otten and Epstude (2006) used a

minimal group paradigm to explore self-anchoring and self-stereotyping processes and found that, when dealing with

ambiguous characteristics, individuals are likely to generalize from the self to the group, but less likely to generalize from

the group to the self. In such instances, rather than changing their personal identities to match group stereotypes,

individuals will construct views of ingroups that match their personal identities. Thus, according to this view, a girl who

views herself as mathematically talented will deny, distort, or forget gender-stereotypic information about girls and math

(rather than begin to doubt her own math skills).

Although we are unaware of research on self-anchoring among youth, there is some evidence that young children’s

personal identities do influence their activities during childhood and adolescence (Bandura, 1990; Cassidy, Aikins, &

Chernoff, 2003; Cassidy, Ziv, Mehta, & Feeney, 2003; Rosen, 2006). Cassidy et al. (2003), for example, reported that

children preferred to interact with partners who confirmed their personal identities, and Bandura (1990) reported that

children ignored feedback that could improve their performance on a task when they believed themselves to have low

ability in that domain. Evidence consistent with a role for personal identities in shaping social stereotypes also comes from

gender development research. Dinella and Martin (2003), for example, found that self-described tomboys were more

likely to endorse counterstereotypic views of gender than their more traditional peers.

BI-DIRECTIONAL AND IDENTITY NEGOTIATION MODELS

It is possible, perhaps even likely, that group-identity-to-personal-identity and personal-identity-to-group-identity

pathways operate in tandem. Swann and colleagues have argued that a process of ‘‘identity negotiation’’ between the

personal identities of targets and others’ perceptions of targets often occurs (Swann, 1987; Swann & Bosson, 2008; Swann,

Milton, & Polzer, 2000). Swann and colleagues’ research indicates that targets’ self-views prevail in most instances,

although perceivers’ beliefs prevail when they are highly certain of their judgments of targets and targets are uncertain of

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 652–670 (2010)

DOI: 10.1002/ejsp

Personal and group identities 655

their self-views. Similarly, field studies of college roommates (McNulty & Swann, 1994) and small groups of MBA

students (Swann, Polzer, Seyle, & Ko, 2004) reveal that just as perceivers’ initial appraisals influence targets’ subsequent

personal identities, so too do targets’ self-views influence perceivers’ later appraisals.

The notion of bi-directional influences of self and group views has also been incorporated into recent models of gender

role development. In contrast to unidirectional causal models, Liben and Bigler (2002) proposed a bi-directional model of

gender differentiation. Liben and Bigler argued that gender role development is propelled by a personal pathway, in which

views of the self drive views of the group and, simultaneously, an attitudinal pathway, in which gender attitudes drive views

of, and decisions for, the self. Although Liben and Bigler argue that both of these processes occur, they do not specify the

factors that might lead one pathway to predominate within a given context.

An additional perspective on integration of self and group views is Brewer’s (1991) optimal distinctiveness theory.

Brewer posited that the formation of social identities is motivated by two opposing human desires: a desire for similarity to

others and a desire for uniqueness. Brewer argued that one way in which individuals maintain feelings of optimal

distinctiveness is through identification with social groups. The desire for feelings of similarity (assimilation with others)

is satisfied within the social group, whereas the desire for uniqueness (differentiation of the self) is satisfied through

intergroup comparisons (Brewer, 1991). Brewer predicts that group members who feel overly distinctive or dissimilar

from the ingroup will strive to increase their ingroup identification in an attempt to feel more similar to ingroup members

and maintain an optimal level of distinctiveness. That is, the coordination of self and group identities is an ongoing process

that serves individuals’ needs for belonging and uniqueness.

Support for Brewer’s theory comes from empirical studies that manipulate individuals’ sense of typicality. Markus and

Kunda (1986), for example, found that individuals who had been led to feel highly unique subsequently perceived

themselves as more similar to ingroups – and more dissimilar to outgroups – than participants who had been led to feel

similar to others. Similarly, Pickett, Bonner, and Coleman (2002) reported that participants who were told that they were

different from ingroup members (a threat to ingroup assimilation) stated that they possessed typical ingroup characteristics

more often than participants who were told that they were similar to ingroup members. The authors interpreted the findings

as indicating that threats to assimilation (such as indications that one holds different attitudes than most ingroup members)

produce increased ingroup identification.

A recent study of racial typicality also relates to optimal distinctiveness theory’s predictions regarding ingroup

identification. Oyserman, Brickman, Bybee, and Celious (2006) found that African American and Latino adolescent boys

whose facial appearance (or self-perceived appearance) was atypical of their race showed higher rates of academic failure

than their peers with more typical racial features. The authors interpret their findings as indicating that being atypical of

one’s social group in one respect may lead individuals to strive to be typical of their ingroup in other respects, even when

this means confirming negative stereotypes.

One final theory that is relevant to the integration of self and other views concerns the development of subjective group

dynamics (DSGD). Abrams and colleagues (Abrams & Rutland, 2008; Abrams, Rutland, & Cameron, 2003; Abrams, Rutland,

Cameron, & Ferrell, 2007) have studied children’s perceptions of social groups and group norms, with a particular emphasis on

the importance of differentiation processes (i.e., intergroup bias, differential evaluation, and differential inclusion). Studies

from the DSGD perspective indicate that, with age, children become increasingly aware of the norms governing intergroup

relations and more sensitive to factors such as ingroup loyalty (Abrams et al., 2003, 2007). With age, children also

show increasing evidence of identity-based motivation (e.g., children who identified with their ingroup more strongly

showed greater preference for normative group members than did children who identified less strongly; Abrams et al.,

2003). Recent research (Abrams, Rutland, Ferrell, & Pelletier, 2008) indicates that these processes apply in minimal

and culturally important social groups. Thus, in the present study, we tested the hypothesis that group-identity-shapes-

personal-identity pathways may operate more strongly among older than younger children, whereas personal-identity-shapes-

group-identity pathways may operate more strongly among younger than older children.

THE PRESENT STUDY

We sought to examine the causal pathways through which relations between group and personal identities are integrated by

creating a situation in which children’s self-conceptions would be consistent – or conflict – with their group identities.

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 652–670 (2010)

DOI: 10.1002/ejsp

656 Meagan M. Patterson et al.

Because we were interested in fixed, involuntary group identities that are associated with stereotypes (such as race and

gender), children were randomly assigned to novel social groups (‘‘red’’ and ‘‘blue’’ groups denoted by colored t-shirts) in

their classrooms and provided information about the associations between these color groups and specific competencies

(academic and athletic skills) via posters in their classrooms. The use of posters to convey information about the

characteristics of novel groups has been used in previous work (Bigler, Brown, & Markell, 2001; Bigler, Jones, &

Lobliner, 1997; Brown & Bigler, 2002), and combines the advantages of experimental manipulation with those of field

methods (e.g., ecological validity). Specifically, in previous studies (Bigler et al., 2001; Brown & Bigler, 2002), the

presence of classroom posters presenting status information about novel groups affected children’s intergroup attitudes.

That is, the presence of posters depicting one color group as winning athletic and academic contests led to more positive

views of ingroup members among high status (i.e., winning) than low status (i.e., losing) group members. In the present

study, we focused on two primary sets of outcomes: personal identity (i.e., views of self) and group identity (i.e., views of

novel groups).

With respect to personal identity, we assessed children’s perceived self-competence in the same two domains

targeted for experimental manipulation: academics and athletics. Self-competencies were assessed prior to and after the

exposure to the experimental messages about the novel groups. As noted above, three outcomes are possible. The

first possible outcome is that children whose personal identities are discrepant from their ingroup within these domains

(i.e., children whose personal identities are not confirmed by their group membership) will alter their self-perceptions to

bring them into line with their views of the ingroup. The second possible outcome is that children whose personal identities

are discrepant from their group identities will not alter their personal identities but instead will alter their perceptions of

their ingroup to bring them into line with their personal identity. The third possible outcome is that children whose

personal identities are discrepant from their ingroup identity will alter neither their personal identities nor their perceptions

of their ingroup; children will maintain a stereotypical view of the group while perceiving themselves as atypical group

members.

With respect to group identities, we assessed children’s (a) affective reactions to the intra- and intergroup context, (b)

ingroup identification, and (c) intergroup bias. Again, there are theoretical grounds to support two conflicting hypotheses

with respect to these variables. The first possible outcome is that children whose personal identities are discrepant from

their group views (i.e., children whose personal identities are not confirmed by their group membership) might value their

group membership more strongly than their peers and, as a consequence, seek to strengthen their psychological sense of

belongingness, similarity, and ingroup bias. This view is consistent with social identity and self-categorization theories

(Turner, Hogg, Oaks, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987) and optimal distinctiveness theory (Brewer, 1991). Because atypical

children may have a less secure sense of attachment to the group (and consequently a threatened sense of pride and self-

esteem) they may have to work especially hard to maintain their connection to the group. Indeed, threat has been found to

increase ingroup bias (Cameron, Duck, Terry, & Lalonde, 2005). Thus, those children who are atypical of their ingroup

would be expected to show stronger ingroup identification and higher levels of ingroup bias than those children who are

typical of their ingroup.

The second possible outcome is that children who are atypical of their group might value their group

membership less strongly than children who are typical of their group and, as a consequence, show a weakened

psychological sense of belongingness, lower perceptions of similarity to the group, and reduced ingroup bias. In other

words, because atypical children are likely to view themselves as differing from their ingroup to a greater degree than

typical children, they may be less likely to extend their personal identities to other ingroup members and thus show

reduced ingroup bias.

The research questions were addressed using a sample of children who ranged in age from 5 to 11. This range allowed

us to examine whether age was associated with differing reactions to the experimental manipulation. We had two reasons

for expecting that older children may provide stronger evidence for the group-identity-shapes-personal-identity model

than younger children. As noted earlier, older children have been shown to be more knowledgeable than younger children

about the norms governing social groups, including the norms of ingroup loyalty and conformity (e.g., Abrams et al.,

2008). Older children may, therefore, show more concern with conforming their personal identity to the ingroup identity.

In addition, older children are better able to reason about internal (nonobservable) person characteristics than younger

children (e.g., Alvarez, Ruble, & Bolger, 2001). Because our manipulation concerned internal rather than perceptually

salient characteristics (i.e., academic and athletic aptitude), we expected older children to show more pronounced

responses to the manipulation of group identity (see Abrams et al., 2003; Patterson & Bigler, 2007).

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 652–670 (2010)

DOI: 10.1002/ejsp

Personal and group identities 657

METHOD

Participants

Participants were 82 children (43 boys, 39 girls) attending a summer school program in the Midwest. Four additional

students were enrolled in the summer school program but were not included in data collection because parental permission

to participate in testing sessions was not obtained. The sample was predominantly white and middle class. Participants

ranged in age from 5 to 11 years (M¼ 8.14, SD¼ 1.79). Prior to the start of the study, children were grouped according to

age and assigned to one of eight classrooms. Classes ranged in size from 8 to 14 pupils.

Overview of Procedure

On the first day of school, prior to the introduction of the novel social groups, children were given a self-esteem measure

that included assessments of children’s perceived competence in the academic and athletic domains. Next, children in each

classroom were randomly assigned to novel social groups (‘‘red’’ or ‘‘blue’’), denoted by colored t-shirts (as in a number of

studies conducted by Bigler and colleagues, e.g., Bigler, 1995; Bigler et al., 1997; Brown & Bigler, 2002; Patterson &

Bigler, 2006). All children who attended the school wore colored t-shirts. Within each classroom, half of the children were

assigned to the blue group and half were assigned to the red group.

To test the idea that children would project their own personal identities onto their ingroup, children were asked to rate

the characteristics of their ingroup and outgroup within 24 hours of their group assignment. Children rated the groups

using the same competence scales on which they had rated themselves. Over the following 6 weeks of summer school,

teachers made frequent use of the novel groups to organize and label children (e.g., ‘‘The red group can line up for

recess’’). Teachers were instructed to treat the two groups equally and to prevent group competition because

competitiveness has been found to promote negative intergroup relations. In addition, six large color posters were placed

within each classroom. These posters were nearly identical in size (55 cm� 71 cm), shape, and content to the posters used

to affect children’s judgments about novel group qualities in previous studies (e.g., Bigler et al., 2001; Brown & Bigler,

2002).

Three posters depicted the winners of contests in academic domains and three posters depicted the winners of contests

in athletic domains. Ethical and ecological validity considerations prevented the depiction of novel groups as incompetent

in academic and athletic domains (i.e., depicting the losers of athletic and academic competitions). Within each classroom,

children of one color group (e.g., red) were depicted as winning all of the athletic events, whereas children of the other

color group were depicted as winning all of the academic events (the color of the high-performing group in the each

domain was counter-balanced across classrooms). Thus, each classroom included some children whose self-perceptions

were consistent with the poster messages (e.g., I am good at school; other members of my group are good at school) and

some children’s whose self-perceptions were inconsistent with the poster messages (e.g., I am good at school; other

members of my group are good at sports).

During the final (sixth) week of school, children were again given the academic and athletic subscales of the perceived

competence scale and asked a series of questions about the novel groups to assess ingroup identification and intergroup

bias. Finally, children participated in a 30-minute debriefing session led by the second author and a classroom teacher.

Together, they explained the purpose of the experimental procedures and discussed the negative consequences of social

stereotypes.

Pretest Measures

Academic and Athletic Self-Competence

Participants were asked questions from the Perceived Competence Scale for Children (Harter, 1982) assessing self-

perceived competences in two domains: academics (e.g. ‘‘Some kids do well in school, is that true for you?’’) and athletics

(e.g. ‘‘Some kids do well at new sports, is that true for you?’’). Response options ranged from ‘‘really true’’ (4) to ‘‘really

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 652–670 (2010)

DOI: 10.1002/ejsp

658 Meagan M. Patterson et al.

not true’’ (1). Children were also asked to complete a single-item measure asking whether they believed themselves to be

better at school or sports.

Perceived Group-Competence

Participants were asked to rate the novel groups using the same perceived competence scales on which they had rated

themselves (i.e., Harter’s Perceived Competence Scale for Children, 1982). Specifically, children were asked to indicate

how many children in each color group within the school were characterized by each of the Harter items using the response

options, ‘‘only red kids,’’ ‘‘mostly red kids, some blue kids,’’ ‘‘some blue and some red kids,’’ ‘‘mostly blue kids, some red

kids,’’ and ‘‘only blue kids.’’

Treatment Conditions

Overview

The experimental manipulation of information about the novel groups was done via the placement of posters in the

children’s classrooms (as in Bigler et al., 2001; Brown & Bigler, 2002). Each classroom contained six posters. Teachers

informed the students in their classrooms that the posters portrayed children and events from the previous year’s summer

school. That is, we maximized the likelihood that children would generalize the characteristics of the children on the

posters to their own groups by creating the impression that the children in the posters (a) lived in the same general location

(e.g., city and state) as the participants, (b) had attended the same summer school as the participants, and (c) were the same

ages, races, and genders as the participants. None of the teachers had taught in the program previously and thus they were

able to answer questions about the posters honestly by stating that they knew nothing else about the children or events

depicted in the posters. Three of the posters depicted children who were successful in academic domains (spelling,

reading, and math contests) and three of the posters depicted children who were successful in athletic domains (swimming

contests, field day, and sports team captains). The depicted winners in academic domains were all members of one color

group, whereas the depicted winners in athletic domains were all members of the other color group. The domain of the winning

group was counterbalanced across classrooms: athletic winners were depicted as red and academic winners as blue in half of

the classrooms, whereas the reverse was true (i.e., academic winners were depicted as red and athletic winners as blue) in the

other half of the classrooms. Thus, half the children in the each classroom were assigned to each of the two treatment

conditions (academic and athletic). A summary of participant characteristics within conditions appears in Table 1.

Academic Ingroup Condition

Children in this condition saw posters that depicted their ingroup as better at academics than athletics. That is, the six

posters in the child’s classroom depicted the child’s ingroup (red in some classrooms; blue in other classrooms) as winning

Table 1. Summary of participant characteristics across condition

Condition

Academic Athletic

GenderBoys 23 19Girls 16 22

Age groupYounger (5–8) 22 25Older (9–11) 17 16

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 652–670 (2010)

DOI: 10.1002/ejsp

Personal and group identities 659

a series of academic competitions (summer reading contest, math quizzes, spelling bees) and the child’s outgroup as

winning a series of athletic competitions.

Athletic Ingroup Condition

Children in this condition saw posters that depicted their ingroup as better at athletics than academics. That is, the six

posters in the child’s classroom depicted the child’s ingroup (red in some classrooms; blue in other classrooms) as winning

a series of athletic competitions (swimming events, field day events, ball games) and the child’s outgroup as winning a

series of academic competitions.

Posttest Measures

Overview

After several weeks of exposure to the posters, children’s views of their own competence were assessed using both the

perceived competence scale and specific questions about academic and athletic skills. We also assessed children’s ingroup

identification and intergroup bias.

Academic and Athletic Self-Competence

Participants again reported their perceived competence on the academic and athletic subscales of the Perceived

Competence Scale for Children (Harter, 1982).

Ingroup Identification

Participants’ satisfaction with their group membership was assessed with three questions: (1) ‘‘How important is being a

blue/red group member to you?’’ with response options ranging from ‘‘not important’’ (1) to ‘‘very important’’ (4); (2)

‘‘How happy are you to be in the blue/red group?’’ with response options ranging from ‘‘not happy’’ (1) to ‘‘very happy’’

(4); and (3) ‘‘If you could choose your group membership, would you choose to be in the blue group or the red group?’’

Ingroup Bias – Traits

Participants rated how many members of each color group (all, most, some, or none) possessed seven positive traits (i.e.,

friendly, helpful, nice, pretty/handsome, smart, good, hard working), as in previous research (Bigler, 1995; Bigler et al.,

1997; Bigler et al., 2001; Brown & Bigler, 2002).

Group Evaluations – Academic and Athletic Skills

Participants rated each color group’s perceived skills in several academic (spelling, math, reading) and athletic (running,

swimming, sports) domains using a 4-point scale from ‘‘excellent’’ (3) to ‘‘not very good’’ (0).

Group Evaluations – Competency Ratings

Participants were asked which color group would win contests that were similar to those depicted on the posters (e.g.,

spelling bee, kickball game). Response options were ‘‘red,’’ ‘‘blue,’’ and ‘‘tie’’. Responses favoring the ingroup were

scored as þ1, responses favoring the outgroup were scored as �1, and neutral (‘‘tie’’) responses were scored as 0.

Composite scores were created to reflect children’s overall judgments of academic and athletic contests. Possible scores

for each subscale (academic and athletic) ranged from �3 to þ3.

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 652–670 (2010)

DOI: 10.1002/ejsp

660 Meagan M. Patterson et al.

RESULTS

Overview of Data Analyses

The first set of analyses examined children’s pretest self-competence rating within academic and athletic domains (i.e.,

measures taken prior to the experimental manipulation of messages about the competencies of the novel groups). To test

for effects of personal identity on group identity, we examined whether children’s self-perceptions at pretest affected their

initial perceptions of novel groups.

The second set of analyses examined children’s responding on the posttest measures for evidence of ingroup bias (i.e.,

measures taken after the experimental manipulation of messages about the competencies of the novel groups).

The third set of analyses examined the effects of treatment condition (i.e., academic vs. athletic) on children’s personal

identities. That is, we tested the possible role of group identity in shaping personal identity by examining whether the

information presented in classroom posters about the social groups produced changes in children’s group views (i.e., a test

of the effectives of our manipulation) and personal identities. For this set of analyses, we used analysis of variance in order

to maximize the likelihood of detecting age by condition interactions.

The fourth and final set of analyses examined the effect of self-confirming versus disconfirming information on

children’s views of social groups. That is, we tested the possible role of personal identity in shaping group identity by

examining whether information that one was concordant with versus discordant from one’s ingroup produced differing

reactions to group membership (e.g., ratings of group importance, ingroup bias). Because we predicted that children’s level

of cognitive development might influence the effect of membership in discordant groups, for this set of analyses, we used

linear regression to increase our sensitivity to age effects.

Pretest Measures

Preliminary Analyses

We first examined children’s pretest ratings of their academic and athletic abilities using participant gender as a between

subjects variable. Results indicated a significant main effect of gender, with boys generally showing higher levels of

athletic self-competence than girls. We controlled for variations associated with gender by using gender as a covariate in

all subsequent analyses. We also examined correlations between age and children’s pretest ratings of their academic and

athletic abilities. Age was not significantly related to children’s ratings of their academic or athletic abilities (ps> .30).

Thus, we did not include age in analyses relating to children’s personal or group identities. We did, however, include age as

a predictor variable in analyses regarding the integration of personal and group identities, due to the potential influence of

children’s level of cognitive development on integration processes.

Personal Identities

Academic and Athletic Self-Competence

Children’s mean pretest scores on the academic and athletic subscales of the Harter Perceived Competence Scale were

typical of those found among elementary-school-aged children (Academic: M¼ 21.9, SD¼ 3.5; Athletic: M¼ 21.1,

SD¼ 4.0; see Harter, 1982). As expected given random assignment to conditions, a 2 (treatment condition: academic vs.

athletic) by 2 (domain: academic vs. athletic) ANCOVA using gender as a covariate indicated no significant differences

across treatment condition. The gender covariate was nonsignificant for the academic subscale but was significant for the

athletic subscale (F(1, 67)¼ 12.80, p< .01). Boys demonstrated significantly higher self-competence than girls on the

athletic subscale (girls’M¼ 19.5, boys’ M¼ 22.5). Children’s perceptions of their academic and athletic competence were

moderately correlated (r(70)¼ .29, p< .05).

Children were also asked to report whether they were better at sports or school. Two children refused to choose one

domain. The remaining children were evenly split; 50% of the children claimed that they were better at school and 50%

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 652–670 (2010)

DOI: 10.1002/ejsp

Personal and group identities 661

claimed that they were better at sports. Chi-square analyses indicated that boys were significantly more likely than girls

(70% vs. 27%) to say that they were better at sports than school, x2(1, N¼ 56)¼ 10.3, p< .01.

To create a single score indicating children’s self-perceived abilities, we subtracted children’s total scores on the Harter

athletic subscale from their total scores on the Harter academic subscale. Thus, positive scores indicate a perception that

one is better at school than sports; negative scores indicate a perception that one is better at sports than school. Children’s

scores ranged from þ9 to �11, with a mean of 0.85. Children’s scores on this measure were consistent with their responses

on the forced-choice measure; children who stated that they were better at school on the forced-choice measure had a mean

self-perception score of 2.96 (SD¼ 3.89), whereas children who stated that they were better at sports on the forced-choice

measure had a mean self-perception score of �1.78 (SD¼ 3.48). An independent-samples t-test indicated that the two

groups were significantly different in perceived competence, t(54)¼ 4.72, p< .001.

Group Identities

Perceived Group Competence

To assess whether children showed immediate biases (i.e., appearing within 24 hours of group assignment) in their

perceptions of the novel groups, we tallied the number of (a) ingroup biased (i.e., ‘‘only’’ and ‘‘mostly’’ members of the

child’s ingroup), (b) outgroup biased (i.e., ‘‘only’’ and ‘‘mostly’’ members of the child’s outgroup), and (c) neutral

responses (i.e., ‘‘both’’ members of the child’s ingroup and outgroup) to the items from the academic and athletic subscales

of the Harter measure. To obtain a single index of bias for each subscale, we subtracted the total number of outgroup biased

responses from the total number of ingroup biased responses. A one-sample t-test indicated that bias on the academic

subscale were significantly above chance, M¼ 0.71, t(72)¼ 3.39, p< .05. Bias on the athletic subscale, although in the

predicted direction, was not significantly different from chance, M¼ 0.15. Thus, at the group level, children showed some

bias favoring the ingroup within one day of being assigned to novel groups. As expected given random assignment, a 2

(treatment condition: academic vs. athletic) by 2 (domain: academic vs. athletic) repeated measures ANCOVA using

gender as a covariate indicated no significant differences in ingroup bias across treatment condition or gender for either

subscale.

Tests for Personal-Identity-Shapes-Group-Identity Effects

The self-anchoring hypothesis predicts that children will project their personal identities (whether positive or negative)

onto their ingroup. To test this notion, we examined whether individual differences in children’s perceived self-

competence were related to their perceptions of the competence of their ingroup. Specifically, correlations were calculated

between children’s self-competence and group competence ratings in the academic and athletic domains. As predicted by

self-anchoring theory, children’s academic personal identities were significantly correlated, r(69)¼ .25, p< .05, with

ingroup bias in the academic domain. As children’s rating of their own academic prowess increased, they were more likely

to claim that their ingroup was more skilled in the domain of academics (but not athletics, r(69)¼ .09, p> .10) than their

outgroup. Similarly, children’s athletic self-views were significantly correlated, r(68)¼ .26, p< .05, with ingroup bias in

the athletic domain. As children’s rating of their own athletic prowess increased, they were more likely to claim that their

ingroup was more skilled in the domain of athletics (but not academics, r(68)¼ .16, p> .10) than their outgroup. In other

words, children projected their views of their own athletic and academic abilities (or lack thereof) onto their ingroup in a

domain-specific manner.

Posttest Measures: Tests for Ingroup BIASES

Overview

The second set of analyses examined children’s responding on the posttest measures of intergroup attitudes (trait ratings

and group evaluations). A summary of these measures, including means and standard deviations, appears in Table 2. One-

sample t-tests were used to examine whether – at the group level – children’s ratings of the ingroup differed from neutral

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 652–670 (2010)

DOI: 10.1002/ejsp

Table 2. Measures of intergroup attitudes

Possible Range Mean SD

Ingroup bias - perceived group-competenceAcademic �7 to þ7 0.71 2.54Athletic �7 to þ7 0.15 2.76

Ingroup bias – trait ratings �21 to þ21 0.14 4.19Group evaluations – skills ratings

Academic �15 to þ15 �0.01 2.06Athletic �15 to þ15 0.29 2.07

Group evaluations – competency ratingsAcademic þ3 to �3 0.82 1.68Athletic þ3 to �3 0.49 1.66

Group happiness 1 to 4 3.24 0.89Group importance 1 to 4 2.68 1.01

662 Meagan M. Patterson et al.

(i.e., chance). We did not expect to find ingroup biases for two reasons. First, all children were exposed (via the classroom

posters) to negative messages about their ingroups’ skill (i.e., information that the ingroup was unsuccessful within either

the academic and athletic domain). Second, the group-level data included those children who perceived themselves to

perform poorly in each domain.

Ingroup Bias – Trait Ratings

To create a single index of trait bias, outgroup ratings were subtracted from ingroup ratings, such that positive numbers

indicated an ingroup bias and negative numbers indicated an outgroup bias. As expected, children’s trait ratings were not

significantly different from chance, M¼ 0.14, t(71)¼ 0.28, p> .10.

Group Evaluations – Academic and Athletic Skills

To create a single index of skills ratings bias, outgroup ratings were subtracted from ingroup ratings, such that positive

numbers indicated an ingroup bias and negative numbers indicated an outgroup bias. Consistent with expectation, children

did not show evidence of ingroup bias in their ratings of the color groups’ academic, M¼�0.01; t(71)¼�0.06, p> .10, or

athletic skills, M¼ 0.29; t(71)¼ 1.20, p> .10.

Group Evaluations – Competency Ratings

Children were asked which group would win a series of hypothetical contests (e.g., a spelling bee, a kickball game).

Responses favoring the ingroup were scored as þ1, responses favoring the outgroup were scored as �1, and neutral

(‘‘tie’’) responses were scored as 0. Despite the presence of posters, children expected their ingroup to win both academic

and athletic contests at levels significantly greater than chance (0), M¼ 0.82, t(70)¼ 4.08, p< .001 and M¼ 0.49,

t(70)¼ 2.51, p< .05.

Posttest Measures: Tests for Group-Identity-Shapes-Personal-Identity Effects

Overview

Group-identity-shapes-personal-identity models predict that children’s views of social groups play a causal role in shaping

their self-perceptions. To test this notion, we examined whether children in our two experimental conditions (i.e., those

children exposed to the message that their ingroup was good at academics but not athletics and those children exposed to

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 652–670 (2010)

DOI: 10.1002/ejsp

Personal and group identities 663

the message that their ingroup was good at athletics but not academics) showed differential changes to their perceived self-

competence in academics and athletics. It was first necessary, however, to examine whether the posters used to convey

information about the social groups were effective at shaping children’s views of the color groups. If the manipulation was

effective, we would expect children in the two conditions (i.e., academic and athletic) to hold different views of the color groups.

Group Identities: A Manipulation Check

Group Evaluations – Academic and Athletic Skills

To examine whether children had internalized the posters’ messages about novel color groups’ skills, we examined

children’s ingroup and outgroup ratings in the two domains using a 2 (treatment condition: academic vs. athletic)� 2 (age

group: younger vs. older)� 2 (target: ingroup vs. outgroup) ANCOVA, with the latter variable as a repeated measure and

participant gender as a covariate. Contrary to the expectation that the poster messages would shift children’s views of the

groups, results indicated no significant interaction of treatment condition and target for either academic or athletic skill

ratings, F(1,66)¼ 0.20, p> .10, and F(1,66)¼ 0.22, p> .10, respectively.

Group Evaluations – Competency Ratings

As in the previous analysis, we examined the effects of posters on children’s predictions concerning the outcomes of a

series of hypothetical academic and athletic contests using a 2 (treatment condition: academic vs. athletic)� 2 (age group:

younger vs. older)� 2 (target: ingroup vs. outgroup) ANCOVA, with the latter variable as a repeated measure and gender

as a covariate. Contrary to the expectation that the poster messages would affect children’s views of the groups, results indicated

no significant interaction of treatment condition and target for either academic or athletic competency ratings, F(1,65)¼ 0.01,

p> .10, and F(1,65)¼ 0.17, p> .10, respectively. Means and standard deviations are presented in Appendix A.

Personal Identity

We did not find evidence that the posters affected children’s explicit views of the color groups. To test whether posters

affected self-views, we examined whether the information presented via the posters produced changes in children’s

perceived self-competence in academic and athletic domains. Specifically, we examined children’s ratings of their self-

competence in each domain using a 2 (treatment condition: academic vs. athletic)� 2 (age group: younger vs. older)� 2

(time: pre- vs. posttest) repeated-measures ANCOVA, with the last variable as a within-subjects factor and gender as a

covariate. For academic self-competence, results indicated a significant age group by time interaction, F(1, 55)¼ 4.09,

p< .05, with older children showing greater gains in academic self-competence over time than younger children. For

athletic self-competence, results indicated a significant main effect of gender, with boys showing higher athletic self-

competence than girls at both pre- and posttest, F(1, 58)¼ 14.72, p< .05. In sum, there was no evidence of effects of group

identities on personal identities. Children who were exposed to the message that their ingroup was good at academics did

not increase their own perceived competence in that domain; children who were exposed to the message that their ingroup

was good at athletics did not increase their own perceived competence in that domain.

Posttest Measures: Tests for Personal-Identity-Shapes-Group-Identity Effects

The analyses described above indicated that the posters used to convey information about the social groups were – at the

group level – ineffective at shaping children’s views of the color groups. Children in the two conditions (i.e., those children

who saw posters indicating that their ingroup excelled in academics and those children who saw posters indicating that

their ingroup excelled in athletics) did not hold significantly different views of competencies of the color groups. One

possible explanation for the failure to reject the null hypothesis is that children project their self-views onto their groups –

as they did at the start of the summer school – even in the face of new evidence to the contrary. That is, self-competence

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 652–670 (2010)

DOI: 10.1002/ejsp

664 Meagan M. Patterson et al.

ratings in a given domain would be positively correlated with group competence ratings in that same domain. To test this

notion, correlations were calculated between children’s self-competence ratings in the academic and athletic domains at

posttest and their degree of ingroup bias within these two domains. Analyses indicated mixed support for the hypothesis. In

the academic domain, children’s self-competence ratings were correlated with ratings of ingroup academic skills,

r(70)¼ .39, p< .01, but were unrelated to belief that the ingroup would win academic contests, r(69)¼�.05, p> .10. In

the athletic domain, children’s self-competence ratings were correlated with predictions that the ingroup would win

athletic contests, r(69)¼ .32, p< .01, but were unrelated to ratings of ingroup athletic skills, r(70)¼ .21, p¼ .075.

Posttest Measures: Impact of Self-Confirmation Versus Self-Disconfirmation

Overview

The final set of analyses examined the effects of confirmation versus disconfirmation of children’s personal identities (i.e.,

whether the messages about the ingroup presented in the classroom posters were consistent or inconsistent with the child’s

self-views) on their views of their ingroups. Specifically, regression models were run in which participants’ differential

self-competence scores (i.e., difference scores on the Harter self-competence scale, with positive scores indicating higher

academic self-competence and negative scores indicating higher athletic self-competence), treatment condition (academic

vs. athletic; dummy coded), participant age in years, and each of the two- and three-way interaction terms (e.g., self-

competence by treatment condition) served as predictor variables and children’s group views served as the outcome

variables. On the basis of self-verification theory, we expected to find the interaction of differential self-competence scores

and treatment condition to be a significant predictor of children’s feelings about the groups. Those children who viewed

themselves as much more competent in academics than athletics – and who saw this situation depicted in their classrooms

posters – (or who viewed themselves as much more competent in athletics than academics and who saw this situation

depicted in their classrooms posters) were expected to show higher ingroup bias and greater ingroup satisfaction than their

‘‘disconfirmed’’ peers.

Group Identity

Ingroup Bias – Trait Ratings

The degree of bias in children’s ratings served as the outcome variable. Results indicated that the overall model was

nonsignificant. None of the predictor variables were significantly related to children’s ingroup bias in trait ratings and thus

there was no evidence that those children whose self-views were confirmed developed stronger ingroup biases than those

children whose self-views were disconfirmed.

Group Satisfaction

In the first regression model, children’s rating of their happiness with ingroup membership served as the outcome variable.

For happiness with group membership, the overall model was nonsignificant. Condition was a significant predictor,

b¼ 1.35, t¼ 2.12, p< .05; children in the academic condition were happier with their group membership than children in

the athletic condition. The age by condition interaction was a marginally significant predictor, b¼�1.30, t¼�1.93,

p¼ .059; age was a stronger predictor of happiness in the academic than the athletic condition, with younger children

expressing greater happiness with their group membership than older children.

In the second regression model, children’s ratings of the importance of group membership served as the outcome

variable. The overall model was significant, F(7, 51)¼ 2.59, p< .05. Self-competence (b¼ 2.38, t¼ 2.43, p< .05), age

(b¼ 0.63, t¼ 3.44, p< .05), condition (b¼ 1.56, t¼ 2.65, p< .05), the age by condition interaction (b¼�1.59,

t¼�2.59, p< .05), and the age by self-competence interaction (b¼�2.51, t¼�2.52, p< .05) were all significant

predictors of children’s ratings of the importance of group membership. Analyses of the age by condition interaction

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 652–670 (2010)

DOI: 10.1002/ejsp

Personal and group identities 665

indicated that age was a stronger predictor of importance in the athletic than the academic condition, with older children

expressing greater perceived group importance than younger children. Analyses of the age by self-competence interaction

indicated that, among older children, children who perceived themselves to be better at athletics than academics perceived

their group membership to be more important than other children; this relationship did not hold for younger children.

Subsumed by these interactions were main effects of age, condition, and self-competence. Children in the academic

condition, older children, and children who perceived themselves to be better at athletics than academics perceived their

group membership to be more important than other children. There was, however, no evidence that those children whose

self-views were confirmed were more satisfied with their group membership than those children whose self-views were

disconfirmed.

Group Evaluations – Academic and Athletic Skills

Children’s posttest ingroup bias in skill ratings served as the outcome variable. Separate models were run for posttest

academic and athletic ratings. For both academic and athletic skill ratings, the overall models were nonsignificant. None of

the variables were predictors of the degree of ingroup bias in children’s skill ratings.

Group Evaluations – Competency Ratings

Children’s posttest ingroup bias in competency ratings served as the outcome variable. Separate models were run for

posttest academic and athletic ratings. For academic competency ratings, the overall model was nonsignificant. The age by

self-competence interaction was a significant predictor, b¼ 2.13, t¼ 2.08, p< .05; among children who believed

themselves to be better at sports than school, older children predicted their ingroup would win fewer academic contests

than younger children. Subsumed by this interaction was a marginally significant effect of self-competence, b¼�2.02,

t¼�1.97, p¼ .054, with those children who viewed themselves as better at school showing slightly higher levels of

ingroup bias than those children who viewed themselves as better at sports. For athletic competency ratings, the overall

model was significant, F(7, 51)¼ 2.22, p< .05. Results indicated a significant effect of the condition by self-competence

interaction, b¼�1.89, t¼�2.08, p< .05; among students in the athletic (but not academic) condition, those who believed

themselves to be better at athletics than academics predicted that their ingroup would win more athletic contests. Results

also indicated a significant three-way interaction, b¼ 2.02, t¼ 2.20, p< .05. Regression models performed separately by

age (younger vs. older) indicated that pattern describe above (i.e., those children in the athletic condition who believed

themselves to be better at athletics than academics predicted that their ingroup would win more athletic contests) was

especially true of older children. Thus, results provided limited evidence for an effect of self-confirmation versus

disconfirmation on children’s group evaluations.

Alternative Analyses

The preceding results indicated that children who saw posters that strongly confirmed their self-views did not differ in their

group views from peers who saw posters that did not confirm their own views. Again, the failure to reject the null

hypothesis may have stemmed from the fact that children’s views of the groups derived from their own self-views rather

than from the posters. For example, children who saw themselves positively may also have viewed their ingroup positively

and, as a consequence, these children may have been happier and more satisfied with their group membership. To test this

hypothesis, we first conducted a regression model examining the effects of pretest self-esteem (combining academic and

athletic self-views) on happiness with group membership. Results indicated a positive relationship, b¼ .25, t(60)¼ 2.03,

p< .05. To test for mediating effects, a regression model was run including self-esteem and ingroup trait ratings as

predictors of happiness with group membership. Results indicated a significant effect of ingroup trait ratings, b¼ .33,

t(59)¼ 2.62, p< .05. When ingroup trait ratings were included in the model, the effect of self-esteem on happiness with

group membership became nonsignificant, b¼ .16, t(59)¼ 1.24, p> .10. A Sobel test for mediation effects indicated a

significant mediation effect, z¼ 2.08, p< .05. Thus, results indicate that children’s positive self-views led to ingroup bias,

which in turn led to greater satisfaction with group membership.

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 652–670 (2010)

DOI: 10.1002/ejsp

666 Meagan M. Patterson et al.

DISCUSSION

The primary purpose of the present study was to examine the process by which children integrate their personal identities

(views of their individual attributes) with their group identities (views of their ingroup’s attributes), especially when a

particular group identity is assigned and associated with cultural stereotypes (e.g., gender, race). To this end, we drew on

two broad classes of theories concerning the causal pathways whereby personal identities and group identities are

integrated. According to the ‘‘group-identity-shapes-personal-identity’’ family of theories, children are motivated to alter

their perceptions of the self to match their own views of their ingroup. This perspective predicts that children who are

exposed to information indicating that their ingroup is skilled in some domain will come to view themselves as especially

skilled in that same domain, whereas children exposed to information indicating that their ingroup is unskilled in some

domain will come to view themselves as unskilled in that domain.

Conversely, another group of theories, referred to here as ‘‘personal-identity-shapes-group-identity’’ models, view

children as motivated to maintain their self-views (e.g., Swann, in press). These models predict that when children find

themselves in a group, they will alter their perceptions of the group to bring them into line with their personal identities. In

addition, if they view themselves as having talents that are discrepant from their ingroup, they will feel less satisfied with

their group membership, and may show less ingroup bias than their peers who view themselves as having talents that are

concordant with their ingroup.

We began by examining children’s view of the novel groups prior to their exposure to information about the groups (i.e.,

posters). Noteworthy was the finding that children showed ingroup-biased perceptions of the color groups’ academic skills

within 24 hours of group assignment. Prior research (Bigler et al., 1997, 2001; Brown & Bigler, 2002; Patterson & Bigler,

2006) has assessed intergroup attitudes after several weeks of experience as group members. These findings suggest that

lengthy experience within the intergroup context is not necessary for biases to develop and instead that ingroup biases

develop quite rapidly. It is not entirely clear why children did not also develop ingroup-biased beliefs about athletic skills.

The means were, however, in the expected direction and it is possible that school summer context made academic skills

especially salient to children.

More importantly, data collected within 24 hours of group assignment indicated that, in the absence of information

about their novel social groups, children projected their personal identities (i.e., self-views) onto their ingroups. This

finding is a novel one in the developmental literature, but consistent with social psychological research indicating that

adults are inclined to project self-views onto the social groups to which they belong, particularly novel groups (Cadinu &

Rothbart, 1996; Otten & Epstude, 2006; Robbins & Krueger, 2005). These data are important in suggesting that children’s

views of groups do not begin as blank slates, but instead are affected by self-views. This notion is consistent with Liben and

Bigler’s (2002) personal pathway model of gender development, which holds that gender atypical children are especially

likely to endorse egalitarian views of their own gender roles, and with Aboud’s view of the origins of racial attitudes among

young children. Aboud (1988, 2008) has argued that young children’s self-views, which are overwhelmingly positive,

form the basis of their views of the racial ingroup and thus most young children endorse biased (rather than neutral) racial

attitudes. Given that most individuals have positive self-views throughout adolescence and adulthood (Diener & Diener,

1995), this process leads to a general trend toward ingroup bias when encountering new social groups.

In the second phase of the study, we exposed children to messages indicating that their ingroup was successful in either

academic or athletic domains; then, after 5 weeks, we assessed children’s views of the groups. Previous research using this

same method of communicating information about novel groups (e.g., Bigler et al., 2001; Brown & Bigler, 2002) has

indicated that such messages affect children’s intergroup attitudes. Unlike earlier studies employing posters, however,

children in the current study received a mixture of positive and negative messages about the ingroup and outgroup. That is,

each color group was depicted as having a strength (e.g., academics) and a weakness (e.g., athletics), albeit the weakness

was implied by the absence of group members who excelled in a given domain. Given the mixed messages, we did not

expect children – at the level of condition – to be strongly ingroup biased. After 5 weeks of exposure, children did not show

significant ingroup biases in trait ratings or evaluations of groups’ academic and athletic skills. Children did, however,

demonstrate ingroup bias in both academic and athletic competency ratings. This finding demonstrates children’s tendency

to develop and maintain ingroup-biased attitudes even in the face of information (such as that depicted in the classroom

posters) that directly contradicts the notion of ingroup superiority.

In addition to failing to eliminate ingroup bias, the posters did not affect children’s views of the color groups’ skill within

academic and athletic domains. We expected that children in the academic condition would develop more positive evaluations

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 652–670 (2010)

DOI: 10.1002/ejsp

Personal and group identities 667

of their ingroup’s academic skill than children in the athletic condition (and vice versa). They did not. There are several

possible explanations for the finding. It is possible that children did not attend to the posters, or that the poster manipulation

was not strong enough (e.g., not enough posters were presented) to elicit attitudinal change. These explanations seem

somewhat unlikely given that very similar posters have produced significant effects in very similar studies (e.g., the same

summer school program, nearly identical classroom sizes, similar experimental manipulations, and identical dependent

measures; Bigler et al., 2001; Brown & Bigler, 2002). It is possible that the mixed valence of the posters (noted above)

contributed to the ineffectiveness of the current manipulation, although relatively little is known about the relative influence of

content versus valence of messages about groups on children’s intergroup attitudes. Alternatively, it is possible that children’s

schemata for ingroup superiority (in evidence within 24 hours of group assignment and again at the end of 5 weeks, albeit

somewhat weakly) may have led children to disregard or view as irrelevant the messages concerning the failures of last year’s

ingroup members within a particular domain, especially given these failures were implied (rather then presented via posters

depicting poor performers). Previous research on constructive memory shows that children show systematic biases in their

attention to, encoding of, and retrieval of group-related information (e.g., Cherney, 2005; Levy, 2000; Signorella, Bigler, &

Liben, 1997). It will be important for future work to examine children’s encoding and retrieval of the content and valence of

information relevant to self and group identities.

Consistent with children’s failure to adjust their views of the color groups, children’s personal identities proved to be

resistant to change. Although children did not appear to change their self-views based on the treatment condition, it is

possible that they might have changed the value they imputed to particular domains. Research with members of negatively

stereotyped groups indicates that group members may disidentify with the negatively stereotyped domains to maintain

positive self-esteem (Major, Spencer, Schmader, Wolfe, & Crocker, 1998). That is, children might have decreased their

valuing of a particular domain after receiving feedback indicating that their group was unskilled in that domain or if their

self-views were not verified. Future research should test this possibility.

Finally, the results of this study support the contention that personal identities shape views of social groups. Those

children who perceived themselves to be highly competent in both academics and athletics showed higher levels of

ingroup biased attitudes than those children who perceived themselves to be less competent. This finding is consistent with

other studies linking high self-esteem to intergroup bias (Aberson, Healy, & Romero, 2000; Bigler et al., 1997; Rubin &

Hewstone, 1998). (Links between self-esteem and ingroup bias in children may be influenced by groups’ societal status,

however; see Dunham, Baron, & Banaji, 2007.) These data further indicate that ingroup-biased views mediate group

happiness. That is, it appears that children who perceived themselves to be highly competent within some domain may

project this view onto their ingroup (i.e., they become ingroup biased), which, in turn, leads to high levels of happiness

with their group. Children who perceived themselves to be incompetent within some domain also appear to project this

view onto their ingroup. This process, however, leads to nonbiased attitudes, which, in turn, leads to reduced happiness

with one’s group membership.

Caution, of course, must be exercised when interpreting the results of this work. The current study examined group

membership that was assigned, fixed, perceptually salient, and associated with specific attributes. The findings of this

research are, therefore, unlikely to generalize to other types of group identities. In addition, the sample size for this study is

relatively small and may have reduced our ability to detect effects, especially possible effects of age within conditions. It

will be important for future work to replicate these findings with larger samples and alternative outcome measures, such as

assessments which control for the inclusion of the self when rating the ingroup. Future work might also benefit from the

collection of data at multiple time points in order to examine the identity integration process more closely. In addition, it

should be noted that this research was conducted with a group of relatively homogenous children attending summer

school, who may differ from other children in systematic ways.

Finally, the experience of group membership in this study differs in important ways from the experience of membership

in most naturally occurring social groups (e.g., race, gender). Children’s experience was temporally constrained and,

although the use of the novel groups was extensive within the classroom setting, it did not extend to other environments. In

addition, children received messages about group characteristics from a single source (i.e., classroom posters), rather than

the variety of potential sources of information about gender or racial groups (e.g., peers, parents, media). Nonetheless,

novel group studies such as this one are valuable for establishing the existence of possible causal relations between

correlated variables (e.g., similarity of perceptions of self and group). Consistency of findings across naturalistic and

experimental studies will allow us to have greater confidence in our conclusions about the ways in which children’s

experiences with social groups affect their views and attitudes.

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 652–670 (2010)

DOI: 10.1002/ejsp

668 Meagan M. Patterson et al.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to thank the personnel, parents, and students associated with St. Cloud State University’s Summer

Reading and Mathematics Camp for their generous cooperation.

REFERENCES

Aberson, C. L., Healy, M., & Romero, V. (2000). Ingroup bias and self-esteem: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social PsychologyReview, 4: 157–173.

Aboud, F. E. (1988). Children and prejudice. New York: Basil Blackwell.Aboud, F. E. (2008). A social-cognitive developmental theory of prejudice. In S. M. Quintana & C. McKown (Eds.), Handbook of race,racism, and the developing child (pp. 55–71). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (1988). Comments on the motivational status of self-esteem in social identity and intergroup discrimination.European Journal of Social Psychology, 18: 317–334.

Abrams, D., & Rutland, A. (2008). The development of subjective group dynamics. In S. R. Levy & M. Killen (Eds.), Intergroupattitudes and relations in childhood through adulthood (pp. 47–65). New York: Oxford.

Abrams, D., Rutland, A., & Cameron, L. (2003). The development of subjective group dynamics: Children’s judgments of normativeand deviant in-group and out-group individuals. Child Development, 74: 1840–1856.

Abrams, D., Rutland, A., Cameron, L., & Ferrell, J. (2007). Older but wilier: In-group accountability and the development of subjectivegroup dynamics. Developmental Psychology, 43: 134–148.

Abrams, D., Rutland, A., Ferrell, J. M., & Pelletier, J. (2008). Children’s judgments of disloyal and immoral peer behavior: Subjectivegroup dynamics in minimal intergroup contexts. Child Development, 79: 444–461.

Alvarez, J. M., Ruble, D. N., & Bolger, N. (2001). Trait understanding or evaluative reasoning? An analysis of children’s behavioralpredictions. Child Development, 72: 1409–1425.

Bandura, A. (1990). Reflections on nonability determinants of competence. In R. Sternberg & J. Kolligan (Eds.), Competenceconsidered (pp. 315–362). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Barrett, M., & Davis, S. C. (2008). Applying social identity and self-categorization theories to children’s racial, ethnic, national, andstate identifications and attitudes. S. M. Quintana & C. McKown (Eds.), Handbook of race, racism, and the developing child (pp. 72–110). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Bigler, R. S. (1995). The role of classification skill in moderating environmental influences on children’s gender stereotyping: A study ofthe functional use of gender in the classroom. Child Development, 66: 1072–1087.

Bigler, R. S., Brown, C. S., & Markell, M. (2001). When groups are not created equal: Effects of group status on the formation ofintergroup attitudes in children. Child Development, 72: 1151–1162.

Bigler, R. S., Jones, L. C., & Lobliner, D. B. (1997). Social categorization and the formation of intergroup attitudes in children. ChildDevelopment, 68: 530–543.

Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17:475–482.

Brown, C. S., & Bigler, R. S. (2002). Effects of minority status in the classroom on children’s intergroup attitudes. Journal ofExperimental Child Psychology, 83: 77–110.

Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1992). Self-regulatory mechanisms governing gender development. Child Development, 63: 1236–1250.Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation. Psychological Review, 106: 676–

713.Cadinu, M. R., & Rothbart, M. (1996). Self-anchoring and differentiation processes in the minimal group setting. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 70: 661–677.

Cameron, J. E., Duck, J. M., Terry, D. J., & Lalonde, R. N. (2005). Perceptions of self and group in the context of a threatened nationalidentity: A field study. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 8: 73–88.

Cassidy, J., Aikins, J. W., & Chernoff, J. J. (2003). Children’s peer selection: Experimental examination of the role of self-perceptions.Developmental Psychology, 39: 495–508.

Cassidy, J., Ziv, Y., Mehta, T. G., & Feeney, B. C. (2003). Feedback seeking in children and adolescents: Associations with self-perceptions, attachment representations and depression. Child Development, 74: 612–628.

Cherney, I. D. (2005). Children’s and adult’s recall of sex-stereotyped toy pictures: Effects of presentation and memory task. Infant andChild Development, 14: 11–27.

Clement, R. W., & Krueger, J. (2002). Social categorization moderates social projection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38:219–231.

Diener, E., & Diener, M. (1995). Cross-cultural correlates of life satisfaction and self-esteem. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 68: 653–663.

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 652–670 (2010)

DOI: 10.1002/ejsp

Personal and group identities 669

Dinella, L. M., & Martin, C. L. (2003, April). Gender stereotypes, gender identity, and preferences of self-identified tomboys andtraditional girls. Poster presented at conference of the Society for Research in Child Development, Tampa, FL.

Dunham, Y., Baron, A. S., & Banaji, M. R. (2007). Children and social groups: A developmental analysis of implicit consistency inHispanic Americans. Self and Identity, 6: 238–255.

Harter, S. (1982). The perceived competence scale for children. Child Development, 53: 87–97.Harter, S. (2006). The self. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Series Eds.), N. Eisenberg (Volume Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol.3. Social, emotional, and personality development (sixth edition, pp. 505–570). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Hogg, M. A. (2000). Social identity and social comparison. In J. Suls & L. Wheeler (Eds.), Handbook of social comparison: Theory andresearch (pp. 401–421). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Hogg, M. A. (2007). Uncertainty-identity theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 39 (pp. 69–126). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.

Hogg, M. A., & Haines, S. C. (1996). Intergroup relations and group solidarity: Effects of group identification and social beliefs ondepersonalized attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70: 295–309.

Levy, G. D. (2000). Individual differences in race schematicity as predictors of African American and White children’s race-relevantmemories and peer preferences. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 161: 400–419.

Liben, L. S., & Bigler, R. S. (2002). The developmental course of gender differentiation: Conceptualizing, measuring, and evaluatingconstructs and pathways. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, Serial no. 269, Vol. 67. Series editor: W. F.Overton.

Major, B., Spencer, S., Schmader, T., Wolfe, C., & Crocker, J. (1998). Coping with negative stereotypes about intellectual performance:The role of psychological disengagement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24: 34–50.

Markus, H., & Kunda, Z. (1986). Stability and malleability of the self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49: 660–670.

Martin, C. L., & Halverson, C. (1981). A schematic processing model of sex typing and stereotyping in children. Child Development, 52:1119–1134.

McNulty, S. E., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (1994). Identity negotiation in roommate relationships: The self as architect and consequence ofsocial reality. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 67: 1012–1023.

Otten, S., & Epstude, K. (2006). Overlapping mental representations of self, ingroup, and outgroup: Unraveling self-stereotyping andself-anchoring. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32: 957–969.

Oyserman, D., Brickman, D., Bybee, C., & Celious, A. (2006). Fitting in matters: Markers of in-group belonging and academicoutcomes. Psychological Science, 17: 854–861.

Patterson, M. M., & Bigler, R. S. (2006). Preschool children’s attention to environmental messages about groups: Social categorizationand the origins of intergroup bias. Child Development, 77: 847–860.

Patterson, M. M., & Bigler, R. S. (2007). Effects of physical atypicality on children’s social identities and intergroup attitudes.International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31: 433–444.

Pickett, C. L., Bonner, B. L., & Coleman, J. M. (2002). Motivated self-stereotyping: Heightened assimilation and differentiation needsresult in increased levels of positive and negative self-stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82: 543–562.

Reynolds, K. J., Turner, J. C., & Haslam, S. A. (2000). When are we better than them and they worse than us? A closer look at socialdiscrimination in positive and negative domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78: 64–80.

Robbins, J. M., & Krueger, J. I. (2005). Social projection to ingroups and outgroups: A review and meta-analysis. Personality and SocialPsychology Review, 9: 32–47.

Rosen, L. H. (2006). The interplay of behavioral confirmation and self-verification in adolescent identity negotiation. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation: University of Texas at Austin.

Rubin, M., & Hewstone, M. (1998). Social identity theory’s self-esteem hypothesis: A review and some suggestions for clarification.Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2: 40–62.

Ruble, D. N., Martin, C. L., & Berenbaum, S. A. (2006). Gender development. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Series Eds.) & N.Eisenberg (Volume Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (sixth edition, pp.858–932). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Rudman, L. A., Greenwald, A. G., & McGhee, D. E. (2001). Implicit self-concept and evaluative implicit gender stereotypes: Self andingroup share desirable traits. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27: 1164–1178.

Sani, F., & Bennett, M. (2009). Children’s inclusion of the group in the self: Evidence from a self-ingroup confusion paradigm. ChildDevelopment, 45: 503–510.

Shrauger, J. S., & Schoeneman, T. J. (1979). Symbolic interactionist view of self-concept: Through the looking glass darkly.Psychological Bulletin, 86: 549–573.

Signorella, M. L., Bigler, R. S., & Liben, L. S. (1997). A meta-analysis of children’s memories for own-sex and other-sex information.Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 18: 429–445.

Swann, W. B., Jr. (1987). Identity negotiation: Where two roads meet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53: 1038–1051.Swann, W. B., Jr. (in press) Self-verification theory. In P. Van Lang, A. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories ofsocial psychology. Sage: London.

Swann, W. B., Jr., & Bosson, J. K. (2008). Identity negotiation: A theory of self and social interaction. In O. John, R. Robins, & L. Pervin(Eds.), Handbook of personality: theory and research (third edition). New York: Guilford Press.

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 652–670 (2010)

DOI: 10.1002/ejsp

670 Meagan M. Patterson et al.

Swann, W. B., Jr., Milton, L. P., & Polzer, J. T. (2000). Should we create a niche or fall in line? Identity negotiation and small groupeffectiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79: 238–250.

Swann, W. B., Jr., Polzer, J. T., Seyle, D. C., & Ko, S. J. (2004). Finding value in diversity: Verification of personal and social self-viewsin diverse groups. Academy of Management Review, 29: 9–27.

Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. Oxford, England:Academic Press.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict, In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), Psychology ofintergroup relations. Monterrey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). An integrative theory of intergroup relations. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology ofintergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson Hall.

Turner, J. C. (1975). Social comparison and social identity: Some prospects for intergroup behaviour. European Journal of SocialPsychology, 5: 5–34.

Turner, J. C. (2000). Social identity. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 341–343). Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.

Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oaks, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorizationtheory. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.

APPENDIX A

Children’s posttest ratings of color groups

Target of rating

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & So

Condition

Academic

ns, Ltd.

Athletic

Ingroup

Outgroup Ingroup

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 652

DOI:

Outgroup

Group evaluations – skills ratings

Academic 5.86 (1.83) 5.66 (2.48) 5.33 (2.03) 5.47 (2.38) Athletic 6.11 (1.71) 5.83 (2.35) 5.94 (2.18) 5.56 (2.20)

Group evaluations – competency ratings

Academic 1.32 (1.04) 0.74 (0.67) 1.18 (1.06) 0.82 (0.97) Athletic 1.11 (1.01) 0.64 (0.76) 1.31 (0.98) 0.72 (0.88)

Note: Skill ratings range from 0 to 9, with higher scores indicating greater competence. Competency ratings range from

�3 to þ3, with higher positive scores indicating higher competence.

–670 (2010)

10.1002/ejsp