Social categorization and power differentials in group relations

This study investigated the independent effects of power differentials on intergroup behaviour. Using a variant of Tajfel's minimal group paradigm (Tajfel and Turner, 1979), subjects were arbitrarily categorized into groups of differing power (0-100 per cent) at two levels of salience. Subjects were asked to distribute resources to ingroup and outgroup others using Tajfel's matrices. Intergroup perceptions, group identifications and self-reported strategies constituted our other dependent measures. Minimal group results, replicated in equal power conditions, were systematically eliminated in unequal power conditions on the matrix measures but not on the intergroup perception measures. Dominant group members were more discriminatory, felt more comfortable and satisfied than subordinate group members. Though consistent with Social Identity Theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1979), results suggest we may also have identified boundary conditions for minimal group discrimination. Without power, social categorization does not lead to effective discrimination.     

Power and status differentials in minority and majority group relations

Using a variant of the minimal group paradigm (Tajfel and Turner, 1986), this study tested the effects of power, status and group numbers on intergroup behaviours and perceptions. Subjects (N = 160) were categorized into groups that varied on status (high or low), power (dominant or subordinate) and group numbers (majority or minority) variables within a 2 × 2 × 2 experimental design. Based on their evaluations of others' creative products, subjects distributed credit points to ingroup and outgroup others using the Tajfel matrices. Results showed that dominant group members were much more discriminatory and less parity oriented towards outgroup others than subordinate group members. High status group members were more discriminatory and less parity oriented than low status group members. Minority group members who were dominant and of high status were highly discriminatory and were unique in showing no parity whatsoever towards outgroup others. Subordinate low status minorities did not discriminate and were exceptional in showing out-group favouritism. Relative to group status and group numbers, group power seemed more predictive of actual discriminatory behaviour. Group status accounted for the greatest variance in social identification and intergroup perceptions measures. Results also showed that social categorization was sufficient to elicit more in-group than outgroup liking amongst all group members regardless of their position in the intergroup structure. Overall, this study indicated that power, status and group numbers independently and in combination, have a strong impact on intergroup behaviours and perceptions.     

Ingroup favouritism and outgroup favouritism in low status minimal groups: differential responses to status-related and status-unrelated measures

To account for the inconsistent findings from previous studies of group status and discrimination, it was hypothesized that low status groups defer to the high status outgroup on measures perceived as related to the status dimension, but favour the ingroup on status-unrelated measures. Subjects randomly assigned to low, equal, or high status minimal groups allocated points to anonymous ingroup and outgroup members using distribution matrices presented as either related or unrelated to the status dimension, and also rated the two groups on traits described as either status-related or status-unrelated. As predicted, low status groups favoured the ingroup more on status-unrelated measures than on status-related measures. Furthermore, while low status groups were less discriminatory than high status groups on status-related matrices, they were no less discriminatory on status-unrelated matrices. In contrast to low status groups, high status groups displayed greater ingroup favouritism when matrices were related to the status dimension than they did when matrices were unrelated. The relatedness manipulation had no significant effect on the discriminatory behaviour of equal status groups. These findings are discussed in terms of implications for research, and relevance to social identity theory. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd     

Minimal majorities and minorities

This study is one of a series of experiments designed to examine how sociostructural factors such as group numbers, power and status affect intergroup behaviour. Using a variant of Tajfel's ‘minimal group’ paradigm the present study investigated the intergroup behaviour of college students categorized as numerical minority, majority or ‘equal’ group members. The effects of salient (S) versus non-salient (S?) group categorizations were also examined. These manipulations yielded a 3 × 2 design matrix consisting of majority/equal/minority × salient (S)/non-salient (S?) group conditions. Unlike most previous studies using this paradigm, subjects' responses on Tajfel's point distribution matrices were supplemented with subjects' report of their own and outgroup's point distribution strategies. As expected, minimal group results were replicated in the ‘equal’ group (S?) condition such that mere categorization into ingroup/outgroup was sufficient to foster intergroup discrimination. However salient (S) equal group members were more fair than discriminatory in their responses. Minorities (S/S?) were generally less fair than equal groups, showed high levels of absolute ingroup favouritism (S?) while simultaneously attempting to establish positive distinctiveness from majorities. Though majorities were generally fair (S/S?), they also appeared to be more concerned than minorities about maintaining positive differentials between themselves and minorities. Although, majority (S/S?) and equal group (S?) members accurately reported their actual distribution strategies, minorities (S/S?) and equal (S) group members were not as accurate in their self reports. Overall the present results are consistent with hypotheses derived from Social Identity Theory. But the results also show that sociostructural variables such as group numbers can have an important impact on intergroup behaviours.     

Perceptions of relative group size and group status: Effects on intergroup discrimination in negative evaluations

The positive–negative asymmetry in social discrimination proposes a threshold for ingroup favouritism within the negative domain: in contrast to comparable studies dealing with in- and outgroup evaluations on positive attributes, ingroup favouritism does not occur when negative attributes are used. The present study focuses on two aspects of this threshold: it investigates processes, which may influence the absence of ingroup favouritism in the negative domain, and it tests ‘aggravating’ variables, which seem to be suficient to elicit ingroup favouritism even in the negative domain. Results show that ingroup favouritism occurred within the negative domain when several aggravating conditions were included, namely high salience of size- and status- similarity between groups and high ingroup identification. Furthermore, subjects under minimal conditions tended to overestimate relative size as well as relative status of their ingroup. The perception of group members to belong to a high status majority is interpreted as a sufficient condition counteracting tendencies towards ingroup favouritism within the negative domain.     

Social differentiation between ‘dominant’ and ‘dominated’ groups: Toward an integration of social stereotypes and social identity

In the experiment reported here, 116 male and female adult subjects allocated the points of Tajfel's matrices to the self; an ingroup (same sex), and an outgroup (opposite sex) member, on the basis of gender stereotypical comparison dimensions, individually or in the presence of an ingroup and two outgroup members. Results show that interindividual and intergroup differentiation are associated with masculine characteristics, but not with feminine ones and that there are differences in the male and female patterns of differentiation. Results are discussed within the framework of social identity theory. A theoretical integration of social stereotypes and social identity is proposed, in order to elucidate the process of intergroup discrimination between gender categories.     

Equity,Intergroup bias and Interpersonal bias in Reward allocation

Decisions to allocate rewards to ingroup and outgroup members are under the dual pressures of equity and intergroup bias. This study examined variations in equity and bias resulting from the incongruity and salience of intergroup status. Incongruity arose from a mismatch between high subjective and low accorded status. Congruity occurred when subjective status and accorded status were both high or both low. By pairing school classes with known subjective and accorded statuses, an incongruous and a congruous status setting were derived naturally. The setting was made either salient or nonsalient experimentally. It was hypothesized that bias would progressively increase, and equity would progressively decrease, with incongruity and salience. Each set of hypotheses was partially supported. Further data analysis showed a robust tendency to under-reward both ingroup and outgroup members. This interpersonal negativity bras was shown by incongruous status allocators either when rewarding superior performance or in the salient condition. Apparently, it served to safeguard personal rather than social identity. The implications for equity and social identity theories were discussed.     

Ingroup bias in the minimal group paradigm shown by three‐person groups with high or low state self‐esteem

From social identity theory a negative relation between self‐esteem and ingroup bias can be deducted. Much research has been done to test this proposition and largely failed to confirm this relation. Unlike many existing studies, we conducted an experiment in which (a) self‐esteem is not conceived as a trait entity but much more situation‐specific, (b) the self‐esteem manipulation is not relative to the outgroup, and (c) the measure of intergroup differentiation is unrelated to the self‐esteem manipulation. We categorised our participants into two arbitrary minimal groups (Klee or Kandinsky fans) and afterwards formed homogeneous three‐person groups (all persons were either Klee or Kandinsky fans). We manipulated the state self‐esteem of these real groups by giving them positive or negative feedback concerning their performance in a problem‐solving task. Afterwards, all groups distributed money to ingroup and outgroup members via Tajfel distribution matrices. Low state self‐esteem groups were found to exhibit stronger ingroup bias than high state self‐esteem groups overall, although the variability of intergroup discrimination was larger in the low state self‐esteem groups, pointing to more heterogeneous reactions to low state self‐esteem. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

When differences matter: intergroup distinctiveness and the evaluation of impostors

The present study examined the effect of intergroup distinctiveness and group membership on evaluations of impostors. We predicted that ingroup members would be harsher than outgroup members on an impostor and that perceptions of intergroup distinctiveness would further moderate these evaluations. Specifically, we tested the social identity theory prediction that low intergroup distinctiveness would lead to greater derogation of the impostor (the ‘reactive distinctiveness’ hypothesis) against the self‐categorization hypothesis that high intergroup distinctiveness would instigate more derogation of an impostor (the ‘reflective distinctiveness’ hypothesis). In this study, vegetarians (ingroup members) and meat eaters (outgroup members) were presented with a target claiming to be vegetarian, but caught indulging in a meat dish. We found that ingroup members derogated the impostor more and felt less pleased about discovering the impostor behaviour than did outgroup members. In line with the reflective distinctiveness hypothesis, the heightened derogation displayed by ingroup members only emerged when intergroup distinctiveness was high, an effect that was mediated by ratings of group identification. The discussion focuses on the different responses intergroup distinctiveness may evoke. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Social comparison and group interest in ingroup favouritism

Studied the effects of reward magnitude and comparability of the outgroup on minimal intergroup discrimination where self-interest was related to ingroup profit. Favouritism towards own group is hypothesized to arise from intergroup comparisons to enhance self-esteem as well as instrumental rivalry for group and self-interest. Sixty-two fourteen to fifteen years' old school-boys and girls were randomly assigned to a high or low reward condition in which they distributed monetary rewards, via choice-matrices, to the ingroup and a relevant comparison outgroup, and the ingroup and an irrelevant comparison outgroup. Monetary self-interest was explicitly and directly linked to ingroup's absolute profit. Ss sacrificed group and personal gain to achieve intergroup differences in monetary outcomes favouring the ingroup; and were less fair and more discriminatory towards the relevant than irrelevant outgroup. especially with High Rewards.     

Downward Social Comparison in the Minimal Intergroup Situation: A Test of a Self-Enhancement Interpretation1

We tested some implications of Wills' (1981) downward comparison interpretation of ingroup bias in the minimal intergroup paradigm. Based on a self-enhancement interpretation of ingroup bias, we predicted that subjects who expected to succeed on a task for dispositional reasons and subsequently failed would be most threatened by the feedback and hence, would engage in downward social comparison strategies. The results did not support the self-enhancement interpretation, but a number of interesting findings emerged. First, downward social comparison involving favorable comparisons of the ingroup relative to the outgroup was pervasive and not mediated by self-esteem. Second, ingroup bias was greatest when individuals' outcomes were consistent with their expectations; ingroup bias was mitigated when subjects received feedback that was inconsistent with their expectations. Third, although low self-esteem subjects rated members of the outgroup more negatively than did high self-esteem subjects, high self-esteem subjects engaged in more downward social comparison by enhancing the self relative to both members of the outgroup and their own ingroup. Finally, self-enhancement strategies were affected by performance expectations, attributions, and chronic self-esteem: People who expected to perform well because of stable, dispositional reasons and who were high in self-esteem showed the greatest tendency to engage in self-enhancing comparisons with others. This was true regardless of whether subjects ultimately succeeded or failed on the important task and regardless of whether the comparison others were members of the outgroup or the ingroup.     

Retributive justice and social categorizations: the perceived fairness of punishment depends on intergroup status

In the current research, the authors investigate the influence of intergroup status and social categorizations on retributive justice judgments, that is, the extent to which observers perceive punishment as fair. Building on social identity theory and the model of subjective group dynamics, it is predicted that when the ingroup has higher status than the outgroup, people are relatively less concerned about punishment of an outgroup offender than when the ingroup has lower status than the outgroup. Two experiments revealed that participants are more punitive towards an ingroup than an outgroup offender when ingroup status is high but not when ingroup status is low. Furthermore, in correspondence with our line of reasoning, this finding emerged because participants were less punitive towards outgroup offenders when ingroup status is high than when ingroup status was low. It is concluded that the perceived fairness of punishment depends on the offender's social categorization and intergroup status. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Normative evaluations and frequency expectations regarding positive versus negative outcome allocations between groups

Data from several recent studies consistently show a positive–negative asymmetry in social discrimination: within a minimal social situation tendencies towards ingroup favouritism which usually appear in allocations of positively valenced resources are absent in the domain of negatively valenced stimuli. The present study investigates whether this valence-asymmetry has any correspondence to variations in normative evaluations of positive versus negative outcome allocations. For this purpose perceptions of normative appropriateness as well as frequency expectations of outside observers regarding outcome allocations made by categorized group members were investigated. Results show that parity choices were perceived as more normatively appropriate than out- or ingroup favouritism. While outgroup favouritism was judged as inappropriate as ingroup favouritism for positive resources, ingroup favouring decisions for negative resources were perceived as the least appropriate response within the minimal social situation. In addition, in contrast to results of St. Claire and Turner (1982) non-categorized subjects expected ingroup favouring decisions by group members more frequently than parity or outgroup favouring choices with respect to positively valanced resources. When, however, negative resources were to be allocated, outgroup favouritism was predominantly expected. Results are discussed in terms of justice considerations and are linked to a normative account of the positive--negative asymmetry in social discrimination. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Perceived ingroup entitativity and intergroup bias: an interconnection of self and others

Campbell's (1958) concept of ingroup entitativity is reformulated as a perceived interconnection of self and others. A 2 (intergroup relations: competitive, neutral)×3 (intragroup interaction: low, medium, high) between-subjects design was used to examine (1) the effects of intergroup and intragroup relations on perceived ingroup entitativity and (2) the relation between ingroup entitativity and intergroup bias. Regardless of the relations between groups, members who experienced intragroup interaction had stronger perceptions of ingroup entitativity and stronger representations of the aggregate of ingroup and outgroup members as two separate groups than members who lacked intragroup interaction. Furthermore, perceptions of ingroup entitativity mediated the effect of the salience of the intergroup boundary on behavioral intergroup bias. These results call into question the ‘intergroup’ nature of group based phenomena. An ingroup entitativity framework is presented that locates the source of group-based phenomena (e.g. intergroup bias) in intragroup processes. Copyright © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

United we win,divided we fail? Effects of cognitive merger representations and performance feedback on merging groups

Research has shown that cognitive representations of mergers influence intergroup evaluations. This paper extends this research by studying how cognitive representations of mergers (one group, dual identity, and two groups) interact with performance feedback (success and failure) to affect intergroup evaluations. Two competing hypotheses were tested, which made different predictions in case of superordinate group salience combined with subgroup salience after merger failure: The subgroup‐salience‐hypothesis predicts that subgroup salience during a merger generally results in pre‐merger ingroup bias toward the pre‐merger outgroup (i.e., two groups and dual identity). The superordinate‐ salience‐hypothesis predicts that subgroup salience only results in pre‐merger ingroup bias if superordinate group salience is low (i.e., two groups). Both hypotheses predict low levels of ingroup bias after merger success. Study 1 confirmed the second hypothesis using a 3 (merger representation: one group, dual identity, and two groups) × 2 (merger feedback: failure and success) design with interacting groups. Study 2 replicated the results in an adapted minimal group paradigm. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

On the immediate consequences of intergroup categorization: activation of approach and avoidance motor behavior toward ingroup and outgroup members

The present research argues that intergroup categorization has immediate behavioral consequences. Specifically, intergroup categorization is hypothesized to prepare the organism to respond differently to ingroup and outgroup members so that approach-like motor movements should be faster toward ingroup- versus outgroup-related stimuli. In contrast, avoidance-like behavior should be facilitated when reacting to outgroup versus ingroup members. Studies 1 and 2 test the basic hypothesis in relation to ethnic, national, age, and political categorization. Study 3 uses a minimal group paradigm to test the hypothesis in relation to newly formed groups. Across these experiments, participants were generally faster in performing approach-like motor movements toward ingroup members or avoidance behaviors toward outgroup members. The evolutionary function and the cognitive underpinnings of this state of "physical readiness" to approach ingroup and avoid outgroup members are discussed.     

The effects of mortality salience on intergroup bias between minimal groups

We tested the hypothesis, derived from terror management theory, that mortality salience would increase intergroup bias between minimal groups. After assignment to groups, participants wrote about death or a neutral topic, and rated the personality characteristics of the ingroup and outgroup. Results supported the hypothesis.     

What children remember about ingroup and outgroup peers: effects of stereotypes on children's processing of information about group members

Three studies are reported about children's memory for stereotypic behaviors attributed to ingroup and outgroup members. According to research and theory in social cognition, cues present in the situation make cultural representations about group members accessible, and once primed, influence all phases of the information processing sequence. In Study 1, Euro Canadian and Native Canadian children (N=98) recalled stereotypic behaviors attributed to ingroup and outgroup members. In Study 2 (N=87), the influence of individual difference variables was explored. In Study 3 (N=32), the memory of Native Canadian children living on a First Nation reserve for behaviors attributed to ingroup and outgroup members was studied. Biases in recall were found in Studies 1 and 2, but in Study 3, outgroup favoritism, typically found among low status group members, was reversed among children attending a heritage school. Among the individual difference measures examined, age and level of cognitive development predicted what was remembered about group members. Older Euro Canadian children recalled more negative behaviors about outgroup members than did younger children, and more cognitively mature children recognized more information about ingroup than outgroup members. Results were discussed in terms of cognitive and situational factors influencing children's processing of group-relevant information and the challenges children in low status groups face in maintaining a sense of cultural identity.     

We'll never get past the glass ceiling! Meta‐stereotyping,world‐views and perceived relative group‐worth

This article examines the implications of perceived negativity from members of a dominant outgroup on the world views and perceived relative group worth of members of disadvantaged groups. We hypothesized that concerns about the negative opinions a dominant outgroup is perceived to hold of the ingroup (i.e., meta‐stereotypes) would undermine group members' views about societal fairness. We expected this trend to be mediated by recall of previous personal experiences of discrimination. We further hypothesized that members' views about societal fairness would predict their perception of the ingroup's worth relative to the outgroup – such that undermined views about societal fairness would be associated with lower perceived ingroup worth relative to the outgroup. Taken jointly, results from two studies using two real intergroup contexts support these hypotheses and are discussed in terms of their implications for the social mobility of members of disadvantaged groups.