In four studies, we test the hypothesis that people, asked to envisage interactions between an ingroup and an outgroup, tend to spatially represent the ingroup where writing starts (e.g., left in Italian) and as acting along script direction. Using soccer as a highly competitive intergroup setting, in Study 1 (N = 100) Italian soccer fans were found to envisage their team on the left side of a horizontal soccer field, hence playing rightward. Studies 2a and 2b (N = 219 Italian and N = 200 English speakers) replicate this finding, regardless of whether the own team was stronger or weaker than the rival team. Study 3 (N = 67 Italian and N = 67 Arabic speakers) illustrates the cultural underpinnings of the Spatial Intergroup Bias, showing a rightward ingroup bias for Italian speakers and a leftward ingroup bias for Arabic speakers. Findings are discussed in relation to how space is deployed to symbolically express ingroup favoritism (Spatial Ingroup Bias) versus shared stereotypes (Spatial Agency Bias).
AbeleA. E. (2003). The dynamics of masculine-agentic and feminine-communal traits: Findings from a prospective study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(4), 768–776.
2.
AbeleA. E.WojciszkeB. (2007). Agency and communion from the perspective of self versus others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 751–763.
3.
AbeleA. E.WojciszkeB. (2014). Communal and agentic content in social cognition: A dual perspective model. In ZannaM. P.OlsonJ. M. (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 50, pp. 195–255). Academic Press.
4.
AschS. E. (1964). The process of free recall. In ScheererC. (Ed.), Cognition: Theory, research, promise (pp. 79–88). Harper & Row.
5.
BenjaminiY.HochbergY. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 57, 289–300.
6.
BenorS. B.LevyR. (2006). The chicken or the egg? A probabilistic analysis of English binomials. Language, 82, 233–278.
7.
BettinsoliM. L.MaassA.KashimaY.SuitnerC. (2015). Word-order and causal inference: The temporal attribution bias. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 60, 144–149.
8.
BettinsoliM. L.MaassA.SuitnerC. (2018). The first, the least and the last: Spatial asymmetries in memory and their relation to script trajectory. Memory & Cognition, 47(2), 229–239.
9.
BrewerM. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love and outgroup hate?Journal of Social Issues, 55, 429–444.
10.
BrownR. (2000). Social identity theory: Past achievements, current problems and future challenges. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 745–778.
11.
BuchmannW. (2006). Bilder in Archiven [Pictures in archives].
12.
CarreirasM.GernsbacherM. A.VillaV. (1995). The advantage of first mention in Spanish. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 124–129.
13.
CasasantoD. (2009). Embodiment of abstract concepts: Good and bad in right- and left-handers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138, 351–367.
14.
CastanoE.YzerbytV.PaladinoM. P.SacchiS. (2002). I belong, therefore, I exist: Ingroup identification, ingroup entitativity, and ingroup bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 135–143.
15.
CastelliL.CarraroL. (2010). Striving for difference: On the spontaneous preference for ingroup members who maximize ingroup positive distinctiveness. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 881–890.
16.
ChatterjeeA. (2011). Directional asymmetries in cognition: What is left to write about. In SchubertT. W.MaassA. (Eds.), Spatial dimensions of social thought (pp. 189–210). De Gruyter.
CooperW.RossJ. (1975). World order. In GrossmanR. E.SanL. J.VanceT. J. (Eds.), Papers from the parasession on functionalism (pp. 63–111). Chicago Linguistic Society.
19.
FischerM. H.ShakiS. (2014). Spatial biases in mental arithmetic. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 1457–1460.
20.
FormanowiczM. (2020). Verb intergroup bias: Verbs are used more often in reference to in-groups than out-groups. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11, 854–864.
21.
FuhrmanO.BoroditskyL. (2010). Cross-cultural differences in mental representations of time: Evidence from an implicit nonlinguistic task. Cognitive Science, 34(8), 1430–1451.
22.
GawronskiB.LeBelE. P. (2008). Understanding patterns of attitude change: When implicit measures show change, but explicit measures do not. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1355–1361.
23.
GilesH.StohlM. (2016). Sport as intergroup communication. In BillingsA. C. (Ed.), Defining sport communication (pp. 150–164). Taylor & Francis.
24.
HamiltonD. L.ShermanS. J. (1996). Perceiving persons and groups. Psychological Review, 103, 336–355.
25.
HegartyP.WatsonN.FletcherL.McQueenG. (2011). When gentlemen are first and ladies are last: Effects of gender stereotypes on the order of romantic partners’ names. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 21–35.
26.
HornseyM. J. (2008). Social identity theory and self-categorization theory: A historical review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 204–222.
27.
HubbardT. L. (2014). Forms of momentum across space: Representational, operational, and attentional. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 1371–1403.
28.
HumphreyN. K.McManusI. C. (1973). Status and the left cheek. New Scientist, 59, 437–439.
29.
JohnsonD. J.WilsonJ. P. (2019). Racial bias in perceptions of size and strength: The impact of stereotypes and group differences. Psychological Science, 30, 553–562.
30.
LamerS. A.SuitnerC.MaassA.CaccioppoliR.PradellH. (2020). The function of vertical and horizontal space to social group identity. Self and Identity, 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2020.1785929
31.
LamerS. A.WeisbuchM. (2019). Men over women: The social transmission of gender stereotypes through spatial elevation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 84, Article 103828.
32.
LeachC. W.EllemersN.BarretoM. (2007). Group virtue: The importance of morality (vs. competence and sociability) in the positive evaluation of in-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 234–249.
33.
MaassA. (1999). Linguistic intergroup bias: Stereotype perpetuation through language. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 31, pp. 79–121). Academic Press.
34.
MaassA.PaganiD.BertaE. (2007). How beautiful is the goal and how violent is the fistfight? Spatial bias in the interpretation of human behavior. Social Cognition, 25, 833–852.
35.
MaassA.RussoA. (2003). Directional bias in the mental representation of spatial events: Nature or culture?Psychological Science, 14, 296–301.
36.
MaassA.SuitnerC.FavarettoX.CignacchiM. (2009). Groups in space: Stereotypes and the spatial agency bias. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 496–504.
37.
MaassA.SuitnerC.NadhmiF. (2014). What drives the spatial agency bias? An Italian–Malagasy–Arabic comparison study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 991–996.
McGuireW. J.McGuireC. (1992). Psychological significance of seemingly arbitrary word-order regularities: The case of kin pairs. In SeminG.R.FiedlerK. (Eds.), Language, Interaction, and Social Cognition (pp. 214–236). SAGE.
40.
McManusI. C. (2005). Symmetry and asymmetry in aesthetics and the arts. European Review, 13, 157–180.
41.
MollinS. (2012). Revisiting binomial order in English: Ordering constraints and reversibility. English Language & Linguistics, 16, 81–103.
42.
MummendeyA.KlinkA.BrownR. (2001). Nationalism and patriotism: National identification and out-group rejection. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 159–172.
43.
RoccasS.SchwartzS. H. (1993). Effects of intergroup similarity on intergroup relations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 581–595.
44.
SantiagoJ.LupáñezJ.PérezE.FunesM. J. (2007). Time (also) flies from left to right. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 512–516.
45.
SchubertT. W. (2005). Your highness: Vertical positions as perceptual symbols of power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(1), 1–21.
46.
SchubertT. W.OttenS. (2002). Overlap of self, ingroup, and outgroup: Pictorial measures of self-categorization. Self and Identity, 1, 353–376.
47.
StephanW. G.StephanC. W. (2017). Intergroup threat theory. In KimY. Y. (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of intercultural communication (pp. 1–12). John Wiley.
48.
SuitnerC.MaassA. (2007). Positioning bias in portraits and self-portraits: Do female artists make different choices?Empirical Studies of the Arts, 25, 71–95.
49.
SuitnerC.MaassA. (2016). Spatial agency bias: Representing people in space. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 53, 245–301.
50.
SuitnerC.MaassA.RonconiL. (2017). From spatial to social asymmetry: Spontaneous and conditioned associations of gender and space. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 41, 46–64.
51.
TajfelH. (2010). Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge University Press.
52.
ThomasW. E.BrownR.EasterbrookM. J.VignolesV. L.ManziC.D’AngeloC.HoltJ. J. (2017). Social identification in sports teams: The role of personal, social, and collective identity motives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43, 508–523.
53.
VaidJ.RhodesR.TosunS.EslamiZ. (2011). Script directionality affects depiction of depth in representational drawings. Social Psychology, 42, 241–248.
54.
ViechtbauerW. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36, 1–48.
55.
VociA. (2006). The link between identification and in-group favouritism: Effects of threat to social identity and trust-related emotions. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 265–284.
56.
Von HeckerU.KlauerK. C.WolfL.Fazilat-PourM. (2016). Spatial processes in linear ordering. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42, 1003–1033.
57.
WojciszkeB.AbeleA. E. (2008). The primacy of communion over agency and its reversals in evaluations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 1139–1147.
58.
ZarombF. M.LiuJ. H.PáezD.HankeK.PutnamA. L.RoedigerH. L.III. (2018). We made history: Citizens of 35 countries overestimate their nation’s role in world history. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 7, 521–528.
59.
ZarzecznaN.von HeckerU.ProulxT.HaddockG. (2020). Powerful men on top: Stereotypes interact with metaphors in social categorizations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 46, 36–65.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
