People’s self-concepts consist of three fundamental self-representations: the individual self, the relational self, and the collective self. Specifically, people define themselves in terms of their unique traits (individual self), dyadic relationships (relational self), and group and team memberships (collective self).6

The individual self is realized by differentiating ourselves from others and relies on interpersonal comparison processes and is associated with the motive of protecting or enhancing the person psychologically.7 The relational self is achieved by assimilating with significant others (i.e., relationship partners, parents, friends, siblings, etc.) and is based on personalized bonds of attachment. People who are high in relational identity engage in more prosocial behaviors with workgroup members, even from different groups.8 The collective self is achieved by inclusion in large, social groups and contrasting the group to which one belongs with relevant out-groups. These three self-representations coexist within the same person. However, at any given time, one or more of these self-identities may seem relevant. (Exhibit 12-1 is one example of how personal, social, and collective identities are measured.)

We noted in Chapter 1 that a defining characteristic of teamwork is interdependence. Consider two types of relational focus when it comes to teamwork: independent and interdependent.9 This distinction is also known as egocentric versus sociocentric10 or individualism versus collectivism.11 People with an independent outlook focus on the extent to which they are autonomous and unique; in contrast, people with an interdependent outlook focus on the extent to which they are embedded within a larger social network.

How might independent versus interdependent construals affect team behavior? In one simple task, people were given a sheet of paper and asked to write 20 statements about themselves, each beginning with “I am.”12 People who are independent in their relational orientation tend to write statements that describe their inner values, attributes, and appearance (e.g., ambitious, creative, and muscular). People who are interdependent tend to write statements that describe themselves in relation to others and their social roles (e.g., father, son, and community member).

Whether a team member views himself or herself as independent or interdependent influences the motivations he or she has and how he or she achieves his or her goals.13 Our cultural values influence our world outlook. Most North Americans value independence and autonomy, show a great disdain for conformity, and seek to be unique. In contrast, Asians value interdependence and collectivity, show a disdain for uniqueness, and seek conformity.14 However, even within a culture, there is variation in individualism versus collectivism. For example, within the United States, people in the Deep South are more collectivistic and those in the Mountain West and Great Plains are most individualistic.15

Perhaps even more striking is the fact that interdependence and independence can be activated within one person at any given time. For example, in one investigation, some people were instructed to read a paragraph containing primarily independent pronouns (e.g., I, me, and mine); in contrast, other people read identical paragraphs that contained collective pronouns (e.g., we, us, and ours); then, motivations and behaviors were examined.16 European Americans who read collectivist pronouns (we, us, and ours) shifted toward collectivist values and judgments.

One of the most important challenges of effective teamwork is the fact that people often focus only on self-interest rather than team interests. In many groups, self- and team-interests are at odds. One deterrent of self-interest is the extent to which a person feels “identified” with his team. Strengthening group identity (rather than personal identity) increases the value that people attach to their team’s welfare versus their personal welfare.17 When groups receive performance feedback, teams that have strong group identities show an increase in group-level interest.18 However, if personal identity, rather than team identity is salient, members will act in a more self-interested fashion.

Team members categorize themselves and others in terms of in-groups and out-groups. In short: “Are you one of us or one of them?” People consider in-groups to be people who are like themselves or who belong to the same groups; out-groups are people who are not

in their group or who are members of competitor groups. However, the distinction between in-groups and out-groups is subjective. Consider Exhibit 12-2, in which one sees progressively more and more inclusive ways to categorize oneself. At the very basic level, a person might see himself or herself as an individual. At another level, a person might see himself or herself as a member of a particular team. At still another level, a person might see himself or herself as a member of a unit or functional area. One’s chronic way of perceiving in-groups and out-groups affects one’s behavior. Simply stated: A person who identifies with the company is going to engage in more cooperative behavior when interacting with a person from a different group because his or her self-identity is defined at the company level. In contrast is a person who sees oneself primarily in terms of one’s team membership or individual identity. In one investigation, some people were told to think of themselves as individuals and others to think of themselves as group members. The group orientation led to more generous, voluntary contributions of resources in a resource dilemma situation.19 People are more satisfied when conflict occurs at a superordinate level (i.e., involving the entire group) rather than at the intragroup level (involving competition between different subgroups within the team).20

People’s perceptions of themselves and their groups can expand and contract. The more narrowly we define our groups, the more competitive and self-serving our behavior. Conversely, when we focus on the larger collective, we are more cooperative. The challenge for the team leader is to carefully balance “team spirit” with the competition that will naturally arise when the team sets itself apart from the rest of the company.

Optimal distinctiveness theory was developed to explain why people seek and maintain conceptualizations of the self that extend to the collective level.21 A person’s collective identity derives from the interplay of two opposing social motives: inclusion and differentiation. On the one hand, people desire to be included in larger social collectives and teams. However, people also want to feel distinct or different from others. The two motives act as opposing drives. For example, as a person becomes immersed in their project team, the need for inclusion decreases (e.g., when they find themselves eating all meals with their team as they furiously attempt to meet a client deadline). However, the motive to differentiate himself or herself increases. Conversely, as a person moves toward disconnection from a team (perhaps after the engagement ends), the need for inclusion increases. The optimal collective social identity meets a person’s need for inclusion by assimilating with groups and teams and serves a need for differentiation by distinguishing oneself from others.

Most people seek an optimal distinctiveness to their self-identities, such that they want to be neither too different nor too similar to others.22 Personal identity is the individuated self—those characteristics that differentiate one person from others in a given team. Social identities are categorizations of the self into more inclusive social units that effectively depersonalize the self-concept, where I becomes we. For most people, the self-concept is expandable and contractible, such that some of the time, we want to be distinct from our team; other times, we want to be part of the group. Within an organization, the need to belong is often fulfilled through our primary team affiliations. The need for distinctiveness is often met through intergroup comparisons—in other words, teams may compare themselves with other teams within a company. One implication of the optimal distinctiveness model is that to secure loyalty, teams must not only satisfy members’ needs for affiliation and belonging within a group but must also maintain clear boundaries that differentiate them from other groups. The balance of individual versus social identities also affects people’s behavior. For example, when faced with a conflict between making a profit for themselves and helping to preserve a collective resource, people who feel a need to belong are more likely to contribute to the greater good, whereas those who need to feel distinct act in a self-interested fashion.23

Although there is not a perfect negative correlation between group size and distinctiveness, if the vast majority of people in an organization are not sufficiently differentiated, they will often mobilize into minority groups to meet their distinctiveness needs. Members of low-status groups are faced with a double conflict between positive social identity and distinctiveness in a way that is more difficult for them to resolve than in the case of high-status majority members.24 On the one hand, members of minority groups can dissociate themselves from their group membership and seek positive identity elsewhere, but this threatens their distinctiveness. On the other hand, they can embrace their distinctive group identity but may not enjoy the positive evaluations that come from the majority.25

Because teams are so important for one’s identity, it is important for the members to feel respected and accepted by their teams. The implications of respect extend far beyond the self-esteem of the members; people who don’t feel respected by their team are not as loyal to their team and not as committed.26 Conversely, respected members of “devalued” groups (organizational groups that have low status and prestige) are the most likely to donate their time to their team and work to improve its image, rather than their personal image.27 In contrast, disrespected members of prestigious groups invest in group activity only if they might improve their personal image. In cases of mild and moderate conflict with out-group members, those who have respect for others engage in more positive action.28

Consider a situation in which you are a member of a team that has little organizational support within your company. Your team competes with two other groups in your organization—one is a disadvantaged group (they don’t have a lot of organizational support and resources), and the other is an advantaged group (they have much organizational support and many resources).29 The performance of the disadvantaged team changes over time, so that it becomes either equal, worse, or better than your team’s performance. How would you feel? Social comparison theory predicts that when a comparable team in your organization performs similarly to or better than your team, the identity of your team is threatened.30 Under such conditions, your team might be most likely to discriminate against (i.e., hurt) other disadvantaged teams that perform similarly to or better than your own team. Conversely, your team is most helpful and supportive of other teams whose performance deteriorates over time—because such groups provide positive social comparison for your group (i.e., they make your team look good). In contrast, the “advantaged” out-group is not as much of a threat to your team (because it is not easily comparable). Thus, teams are more likely to harm and discriminate against disadvantaged groups when their performance increases—thus threatening one’s own team’s performance.31

Social comparison also occurs when people act on behalf of their team. For example, people work harder when they are being outperformed by an out-group instead of an in-group member.32 Similarly, when peoples’ individual performance is compared to a lower-status out-group member than a higher-status one, they work harder.33 Low-status out-group members are especially threatening for peoples’ self-esteem.

The team discontinuity effect refers to the fact that people in teams behave more competitively toward one another than do individuals, holding constant the task and stakes involved.34 Further, the size of the group does not matter; both small and large groups are demonstrably more competitive with one another than are individuals.35 For example, when people play against each other in prisoner’s dilemma-type games, they are not particularly competitive, averaging only 6.6 percent competitive responses over the course of the game. However, when a group plays against another group, competition rises to 53.5 percent over all the moves.36 This suggests that even though most people may prefer to cooperate when they are in teams, a competitive orientation takes over.

Companies often try to create (healthy) rivalry between different groups and departments within the organization. Sometimes, there are substantial economic and status-based rewards. For example, on NBC television show The Apprentice, contestants are placed into teams and given a task. The winning team receives an exclusive reward, while Donald Trump decides which team member from the losing team will be fired.

What is the effect of competition on team rivalry? First, the degree of competition between rival teams depends on how close they are in terms of competitiveness on the key dimension. For example, people become more competitive and less willing to maximize overall company gains when they and their rivals are highly ranked (e.g., number 2 or number 3) than when they are not (e.g., number 202 or number 203).37 The degree of competition between rivals also increases when other meaningful standards are introduced, such as the bottom of a ranking scale or a qualitative threshold in the middle of a scale. To the extent that people feel that a group is a norm or benchmark of comparison, they accord that group higher status and power.38 When groups feel powerless relative to others, they are more likely to experience anger and fear.39

Vicarious retribution occurs when people who are not directly harmed by a rival group nonetheless seek retribution against members of that out-group, who were not the original perpetrators of the initial attack on the in-group.40 The more highly identified people are with their in-group, the more they engage in vicarious retribution. The desire to talk about power is greater among members of disadvantaged rather than advantaged groups.41 And, highly identified members of disadvantaged groups want to talk about power more, whereas members of advantaged groups generally prefer to talk about commonalities between groups.

In most organizations, groups cannot always choose to maintain their distinct identity. For better or for worse, they must undergo mergers and reorganizations. Some mergers occur internally and some occur through external means (e.g., acquisitions). Although mergers between groups are quite common, more than half result in negative consequences, such as stress, turnover, and productivity loss.42 Anticipated mergers between groups can be viewed as the ultimate threat to group distinctiveness in that premerger boundaries are undermined and group members must lose their premerger identity.43 When Sprint and Nextel merged in 2005 in a 35-billion dollar deal, it was touted as a merger of equals. Yet, it was anything but that. Not only were the wireless technologies used by the companies incompatible, but tension erupted immediately among the top management, who fought over everything from the new logo to the location of the company offices to the look of the phones for consumers. Ultimately, Nextel employees started fleeing the company, citing cultural divides. The financial disaster ultimately cost Sprint nearly $30 billion dollars and cost the combined company 4,000 jobs.44

For low-status organizational groups, a merger with a high-status group might provide opportunities to obtain higher status.45 Indeed, members of low-status groups are motivated to undermine boundaries with the high-status out-group to improve the status of their group.46 On the other hand, low-status groups resist mergers when the status differences remain salient between groups or when they expect not to be adequately represented in the merged group.47 High-status groups are accepting of mergers, except when they fear that mergers will undermine their group’s superior position.48 People who belong to high-status premerger groups are less likely to identify with their new group and more likely to show bias against their postmerger group.49 Not surprisingly, leaders play an important role in defining the relationship between the premerger groups. And, as might be expected, group members prefer an in-group leader over an out-group one, and the in-group leader will favor the in-group.50 However, members of high-status groups do not show preference for an in-group leader.51 Leaders have four choices when it comes to balancing in-groups and out-groups: They can treat both groups equally, favor the in-group, favor the out-group, or behave in a complementary fashion, by favoring one group over the other on particular dimensions.52 In-group leaders are evaluated more favorably and are more likely to engender a common identity in the merged group when they behave in an in-group-favoring fashion or in a complementary fashion.53

Just as there can be conflict among members within a team, there can be conflict and competition between teams.

Stereotyping occurs when people categorize others on the basis of superficial information. When we stereotype someone, we don’t consider their individuality; rather, we make assumptions about them on the basis of their similarity to a social group. Several negative stereotypes exist about social groups, such as racial groups and functional groups in companies. Stereotypes are detrimental for understanding people as individuals. A longitudinal investigation of architecture, engineering, and construction management teams engaged in designing and planning a $5 million construction project revealed that team members relied on early impressions of others.64 Specifically, team members tended to make snap judgments about how trustworthy a given team member was and then they used that information to make a judgment as to whether that team member delivered on his or her commitments. Further, judgments of trustworthiness were relatively stable over time.

Even when natural categories and teams don’t exist in an organization, people will create them. The tendency to create in-groups and out-groups is known as the need for categorization. In fact, from the first few microseconds of perception, people begin the categorization process. When we meet a person for the first time, we immediately (and unconsciously) classify them according to gender, race, age, and so forth. Whereas this may seem harmless (as well as natural), it essentially means that we rely on stereotypes to guide our impression of someone. Consequently, we see others as conforming more to stereotypes than is warranted. Furthermore, even when given an opportunity to consider stereotypical and nonstereotypical information about someone, we preferentially attend to stereotype-confirming, rather than disconfirming, information. Additionally, when we can question a person directly, we usually seek to confirm our stereotypical beliefs.65

To see how readily people categorize others, consider the following investigations:

• Case 1: In a room of adults who do not know one another, a box containing two kinds of cards is passed around. One kind of cards is labeled “alphas” and the other “betas.” Each person randomly draws a card from the box. Two groups are formed on the basis of an obviously arbitrary procedure. Members of each do not speak or communicate in any form with the members of the other group, nor do they talk among themselves. They are a group in name only. Nevertheless, in a subsequent evaluation period, members of each group rate the members of their own group as superior on a number of dimensions relative to members of the other group.66

• Case 2: In a room of adults who do not know one another, each person is presented with a page containing several dots and then asked to estimate the total number of dots on the page. Two groups are then formed: those who allegedly underestimate the actual number of dots on the page and those who overestimate the dots.67 When group members are subsequently asked to evaluate the competence, intelligence, creativity, and personal qualities of both groups, they favor their own group—even though they have not communicated with the other members of their group and dot estimation is nondiagnostic.

• Case 3: In simulated negotiations between Stanford and Cornell MBA students, each group awards the other significantly fewer stock options when given the opportunity.68 Furthermore, group members reject options that would pay both teams extremely well; instead, team members seemed more intent on creating large payment differences, rather than maximizing their own welfare.

In all the preceding examples, when people categorize the world into two or more groups and then face the task of evaluating or judging these groups, they uniformly favor their own group. In-group bias, or the favorable treatment of one’s own group and the subsequent harming of other groups, is rooted in feelings of threat. Specifically, when people or teams feel threatened by the presence or performance of another group, they are likely to show bias.69

There are a number of consequences of categorization. First, the benefits: Categorization can clearly help groups achieve their goals and protect their interests. For example, in the competitive business of new product development, teams need to know who they are talking to. Second, categorizing people simply makes life easier because we can take their point of view. Thus, there are some clear benefits of categorization. However, there are some downsides that teams need to know about: First, we evaluate members of out-groups much more extremely. Second, we use stereotypes to predict people’s behavior.

People don’t just segment the world into in-group and out-group members. Once they categorize others, they view members of their own group more favorably than those of the out-group. The in-group bias effect is so strong that members of groups systematically judge their group members to be better than the group average and above the median on a variety of social traits, even when all the members are judged consecutively!70 When this occurs at a group level, it is called in-group bias; when it occurs at the level of nations, regions, or ethic categories, it is called ethnocentrism.71 In-group bias—the universal strong liking for one’s own group and the simultaneous negative evaluation of out-groups—generates a set of stereotypes in which each group sees itself as good and the out-group as bad, even when both groups engage in the same behaviors.72 For example, the beliefs that “we are loyal; they are clannish” or “we are brave and willing to defend our rights; they are hostile and arrogant” are examples of the double standards. People who have high social belonging needs are more likely to engage in in-group bias.73 Collective narcissism refers to an emotional investment in an unrealistic belief about one’s own group’s greatness; the greater the groups’ collective narcissism, the more aggressive they are toward out-groups.74 In-group and out-group distinctions have implications for leadership as well. For example, when a leader is aligned with a perceived out-group, people expect that leader to favor the out-group (even if she actually does not).75

In one investigation, teams were involved in an engaging task (making art posters).76 The teams then underwent reorganizations in which new members were added or deleted from either the same source group (in-group exchange) or a different source group (out-group exchange). Posters were then evaluated for quality. Posters were evaluated much more generously when in-group, rather than out-group, reorganizations occurred, especially when team members identified strongly with their source group. When every group received an (bogus) identical negative evaluation of its poster, the bogus criticism was more upsetting when in-group rather than out-group exchanges were made.

In-group bias also effects the selection and evaluation of team members. Despite a verbal preference for people who behave in an “egalitarian” way, people actually prefer others to display in-group bias.77 Implicit in-group metafavoritism refers to the fact that we prefer in-group members to display in-group bias. And, we also prefer that authorities in our organizations to be in-group members. We expect in-group authorities to favor our groups; people react more angrily when in-group authorities show procedural discrimination.78 Members of high-status groups favor social inequality, and this is particularly true when high-status groups are threatened and identify highly with their groups.79

To investigate the extent of race-based discrimination in hiring, the Urban Institute in Washington, D.C. selected and trained minority and majority group testers. Testers, matched on age, gender, physical strength and size, appearance, education, experience, demeanor, openness, observed energy level, and articulateness—all possible characteristics except for race—applied for the same advertised low-skill, entry-level jobs.80 Four hundred and seventy-six audits conducted by 10 pairs of testers (each pair comprising one African American man and one Caucasian man) revealed clear differences in the treatment of minority and majority job seekers. In 20 percent of the audits, Caucasians progressed further in the hiring process than their equally qualified African American testing partners; in 15 percent of the audits, the Caucasian received a job offer but his African American counterpart did not. Caucasian men received favorable treatment in the hiring process three times more frequently than equally qualified African American men.81 Government data agree with these field results. According to the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs 1305 workplace violations were reported in FY 2012, an 8.1 percent increase over FY 2009. The money collected for violations was intended to reimburse individual workers for wages lost as a result of the unlawful discrimination. Nearly 91 percent of the all of the settlements in FY 2012 involved allegations of systemic discrimination in hiring practices.82 Full-time working men in the United States earn 20.3 percent more than women, and the earnings of all Caucasians exceed that of all African Americans by 20 percent.83

Several factors are known to increase racism. For example, people who are high in social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism and those who have prejudiced peer and friendship groups are all more likely to be racists.84

Many people operate under the faulty perception that racism, sexism, and other issues are a thing of the past. In short, they deny that such discrimination exists. However, hardly a day goes by without a leader or political figure making a gaffe or expressing a bias that leads to a subsequent denial. For example, in 2012, Dan Cathy, president of Chick-Fil-A, came under fire for his personal religious views on the subject of gay marriage after a radio interview. Chick-Fil-A became embroiled in a media frenzy after the comments went viral on Facebook and Twitter, with celebrities and political personalities taking sides in the controversy. Meanwhile patrons flocked to Chick-Fil-A restaurants to express their support or to protest. Cathy and Chick-Fil-A management continued to express their viewpoint on this matter, apparently oblivious to the fact that their opinion was considered by many to be arrogant and offensive.85

Although evidence clearly indicates that the problems of racism, stereotyping, and discrimination are neither small, isolated, or problems of the past, many people do not believe they exist. Victims (and likely targets) of prejudice are more likely to perceive it. For example, women are more likely than men to perceive sexism and racism; moreover, African Americans are more likely than Caucasians to perceive racism.86 This denial—the belief that “I have not seen it”—is an act of discrimination itself. One reason that people often don’t see it is that the opposite of discrimination—privilege—is invisible.87 Unearned privilege refers to advantages that accrue to people simply on the basis of their membership in a group.88 These advantages are unearned because they are based on ascribed characteristics, such as race, gender, age, class, and religion, as opposed to achieved characteristics, such as individual merit, effort, and ability. In one investigation, group situations were examined in which some groups clearly had unearned privilege that other groups did not. This distinction was more noticeable by groups without the unearned privilege as opposed to those with the unearned privilege.89

Yet the perception of discrimination is different from blaming one’s lot on discrimination. Members of high-status groups are more likely than members of low-status groups to blame their failure on discrimination and less likely to blame it on themselves.90 Caucasians perceive less of a threat in the face of failure if they blame discrimination processes.

Suppose that white managers watch a videotape of a discussion among members of a mixed-race group of three African American men and three Caucasian men. After watching the videotape, the managers are presented with the actual text of the conversation and asked to indicate who said what. They are told they will be evaluated based upon the accuracy of their memory. They are accurate at remembering whether a black or white person made a particular comment, and they are fairly accurate in distinguishing among the three white men’s comments, but their accuracy in terms of differentiating which African American man said what is abysmal.91 Thus, within-race errors are more prevalent than between-race errors, because people categorize members of out-groups not as individuals but simply as “black men.” The faulty memory of the manager illustrates a pervasive tendency for people to assume much greater homogeneity of opinion, belief, expression, and interest among members of the out-group than those of their own group.92

The managerial implications of the “they all look alike” effect are detrimental and very serious. Consider, for example, a police lineup in which a victim is asked to identify an assailant. A white victim is more likely to falsely identify a black perpetrator than a white perpetrator.93 Consider, also, the implications of a mixed-sex task force in a corporation. Moreover, when we fail to individuate members of other groups, we are more likely to behave in a punitive fashion.

When people anticipate interacting with an in-group member, they show approach-like behavior; however, when interacting with out-group members, they show avoidance-like behavior. For example, people are faster in engaging in approach-like motor movements (such as moving their arms forward) toward in-group members of the same race, nationality, age, and political persuasion than toward out-group members.94 In-group favoritism also shows up nonverbally and preconsciously: Facial expressions of joy elicit fear in out-group perceivers relative to in-group perceivers.95

The mere contact strategy is based on the principle that greater contact among members of different groups increases cooperation between members. In a study of ethnic students in several different countries, contact reduced prejudice and prejudice also reduced contact.96 Furthermore, past intergroup contact facilitates recovery from stressful intergroup situations.97 Unfortunately, contact in and of itself does not lead to better intergroup relations, and, in some cases, it may even exacerbate negative relations between groups. For example, negative (as opposed to positive) experience in intergroup contact deteriorates relationships;98 multicultural learning about out-group members amplifies negative attitudes in higher-prejudice people;99 and there is little relationship between interdepartmental contact and conflict in organizations.100

Several conditions need to be in place before contact can have its desired effects of reducing prejudice:

• Social and institutional support: For contact to work, there should be a framework of social and institutional support. For example, when people are assigned to cross-cut team roles, in which they are simultaneously members of more than one task group or team, in-group bias about both minority and majority groups decreases.101

• Acquaintance potential: A second condition for successful contact is that it be of sufficient frequency, duration, and closeness to permit the development of meaningful relationships between members of the groups concerned. Infrequent, short, and casual interaction will do little to foster more favorable attitudes and may even make them worse.102 One of the keys to successful contact is self-disclosure, or the revealing of information about oneself.103 This type of close interaction will lead to the discovery of similarities and disconfirm negative stereotypes.

• Equal status: The third condition necessary for contact to be successful is that participants have equal status. Many stereotypes of out-groups comprise beliefs about the inferior ability of out-group members to perform various tasks. If the contact situation involves an unequal-status relationship between men and women, for example, with women in the subordinate role (e.g., taking notes and acting as secretaries), stereotypes are likely to be reinforced rather than weakened.104 If, however, the group members work on equal footing, prejudiced beliefs become hard to sustain in the face of repeated experience of task competence by the out-group member.

• Shared goal: Groups that focus on superordinate goals—those that represent the greater good—are much more likely to cooperate with one another than when they focus on local goals.105 When members of different groups depend on one another for the achievement of a jointly desired objective, they have instrumental reasons to develop better relationships. In 2012, a number of tech giants, including Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and PayPal, formed a strategic alliance called DMARC (Domain-based Message Authentication Reporting Conformance) in an effort to combat phishing, a virtual scam that tricks e-mail and web users into providing access to sensitive information, such as credit card or social security numbers. In this strategic alliance, companies worked with other tech companies to spread the use of standards and practices for e-mail browsers to prevent fake PayPal messages from being delivered to a user’s account. The alliance was able to block over 200,000 fake PayPal messages each day.106

  Similarly, arch-rival pharmaceutical companies participate in patent pools in order to combat cancer.107 Traditionally, companies would craft their own combinations of drugs to fight a disease, but that takes time and is not particularly successful. Companies that reach out to rivals speed up the time it takes to get therapies to market. Merck and AstraZeneca became the first rivals to join forces in 2009 to test two experimental cancer drugs as a single therapy. Sometimes a common enemy is a catalyst for bonding among diverse people and groups. For example, by “waging a war against cancer,” members of different medical groups and laboratories can work together. Similarly, people show less intergroup bias and greater willingness for contact when they categorize others using a superordinate identity.108 For example, when black and white students and Democrats and Republicans focused on their shared identity as Americans, more positive out-group attitudes resulted.109 When groups share a common identity, they are more likely to forgive out-groups for transgressions.110

• Cross-group friendships: Sometimes it is not necessary for groups to have real contact with one another to improve intergroup relations. If group members know that another member of their own group has a friendship or relationship with a member of the out-group, or a cross-group friendship, in-group members have less negative attitudes toward the out-group.111 It is not necessary that all members have cross-group friendships; merely knowing that one member of the group has such a relationship can go a long way toward reducing negative out-group attitudes. For example, when team members are given cross-cut role assignments in other groups, this decreases bias not only of dominant in-group members but also of the minority out-group members.112 Moreover, members of groups don’t even have to have prior interaction. Cross-group friendships not only lead to more intergroup interactions but also have the added benefit of reducing stress (as measured by cortisol levels).113

A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory, including 713 independent samples from 515 studies, reveals that intergroup contact reduces prejudice.114 The contact hypothesis has received support in groups ranging from students at a multiethnic high school to banking executives involved in corporate mergers.115 Contact helps people develop a common shared identity. For example, when groups composed of Democratic and Republican Party supporters are brought into a situation that involves a common fate and intergroup interaction, bias is reduced even when measured in terms of the pleasantness of nonverbal facial reactions.116

In one investigation, Israelis and Palestinians in the Middle East had an exchange in which one person was asked to write about the difficulties of life in their society (perspective giving); the second person was told to accurately summarize the statement of the first person (perspective taking). Positive changes were greatest for Palestinians after perspective giving and for Israelis after perspective taking.117 Exposure to information related to an out-group’s heterogeneity in terms of their positive and negative characteristics reduces prejudice more effectively than exposure to only the positive characteristics of that group.118 However, showing empathy may not always result in positive outcomes. Trying to be empathic when interacting with an out-group member has positive effects when the out-group member discloses significant hardships and thus expresses a need for support; however, in the absence of a call for help, empathy backfires and results in negative perceptions.119

When groups use apology in the face of intergroup conflict, this reduces the desire for retribution and increases the likelihood of forgiveness, primarily because it reduces anger.120 However, apologizing is not always effective because people don’t believe that out-groups are able to truly experience remorse.121 When it comes to actually offering help, there are two kinds of help: autonomy-oriented help and defensive help. Defensive helping refers to extending help to an out-group member whose achievements jeopardize one’s own status. Members of high-status groups who perceive status relations with low-status groups as unstable seek to protect their in-group’s identity by providing dependency-oriented help to the low-status out-group.122 However, it is low-status groups who are more inclined to engage in help giving as a way to enhance their status by demonstrating their group’s knowledge.123 Indeed, when offering help does not allow a group to effectively demonstrate their knowledge, they don’t offer help!

Self-affirmation is the process of thinking about one’s values, accomplishments, and attributes.124 Affirming a positive aspect of the self increased the willingness of people to acknowledge their group’s responsibility for wrongdoing against others and provide greater support for that group; conversely, affirming one’s group (although similarly boosting feelings of pride) failed to increase the willingness to acknowledge and redress in-group wrongdoing.125 If out-groups threaten in-group members, then reducing the threat through a positive affirmation of the group might lead to more accepting behavior toward out-groups. In one investigation, athletes exhibited a group-serving bias, which was subsequently eliminated with a group affirmation.126 The affirmation technique works for fans too: The most highly identified sports fans tend to exhibit the greatest out-group bias, which is eliminated when they make a group affirmation.