The two faces of dominance: The differential effect of ingroup superiority and outgroup inferiority on dominant-group identity and group esteem

The present paper provides evidence that dominant-group members distinguish dominance framed as ingroup superiority from dominance framed as outgroup inferiority, and that ingroup superiority enhances esteem for, and thus identification with, the group more than outgroup inferiority. In Experiment 1, Democrats report higher levels of party identification after being told that Democrats won an election than after being told that Republicans lost the election. These effects are attenuated among dominant group members whose values are in conflict with how dominance was achieved. In Experiments 2a and 2b, unearned dominance framed as ingroup superiority resulted in higher levels of White identification than unearned dominance framed as outgroup inferiority among Whites who did not value meritocracy. In contrast, Whites who valued meritocracy did not increase their levels of identification with the group. In Experiment 2b, this interactive effect on racial identification was mediated by esteem for the group.     

Social Dominance and Social Identity in the United States and Israel: Ingroup Favoritism or Outgroup Derogation?

American and Israeli university students completed questionnaires in their native languages assessing ingroup identification, social dominance orientation (SDO), and ingroup and outgroup affect. The interrelationships among the variables were examined for high- and low-status groups in three intergroup contexts: whites and Latinos in the United States, Ashkenazim and Mizrachim in Israel, and Jews and Arabs in Israel. Theoretical predictions of social identity theory and social dominance theory were tested. Results indicated that for all high- and low-status groups, stronger ingroup identification was associated with more positive ingroup affect, and for nearly all groups, higher SDO was associated with more negative affect toward the low-status group. In addition, SDO was positively associated with ingroup identification for all high-status groups, and negatively associated with ingroup identification for almost all low-status groups. Explanations for cross-cultural differences in the factors driving group affect are suggested, and theoretical refinements are proposed that accommodate them.     

Symbolic threat and social dominance among liberals and conservatives: SDO reflects conformity to political values

Three studies tested the effects of symbolic threat to group values and strength of ingroup (political party) identification on social dominance orientation (SDO), a measure of tolerance for social hierarchies. In Studies 1 and 3, conservative participants were made to feel as though their group's values were either threatened or not threatened by liberals prior to completing the SDO measure. In Studies 2 and 3, liberal participants were made to feel as though their group's values were either threatened or not threatened by conservatives prior to completing the SDO measure. Results demonstrated that high ingroup (political party) identification was associated with high SDO scores for threatened conservatives, and with low SDO for threatened liberals. These findings suggest that in response to symbolic threat, SDO can shift in directions consistent with protecting the ingroup's identity. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Group status, perceptions of threat, and support for social inequality

Members of high-status groups have been shown to favor social inequality, but little research has investigated the boundary conditions of this phenomenon. In the present article we suggest that perceived intergroup threat moderates the relationship between group status and support for social inequality (i.e., social dominance orientation), especially among highly identified group members. In Study 1, Democrats and Republicans rated their party’s relative status and were later exposed to a leading US. Presidential candidate from the opposing party (high threat) or their own party (low threat). In Study 2, university students were made to believe that their school had high or low status and were then presented with threatening or non-threatening information about a rival institution. The results of both studies supported the prediction that status only increases preferences for group-based inequality under conditions of high threat and high ingroup identification.     

Ostracism drives group moralization and extreme group behavior

ABSTRACT

Sharing beliefs, particularly moral beliefs, is a way to establish social connections. We hypothesized that ostracism leads people who are high in the need to belong to adhere to the moral beliefs of an ingroup, and that moralizing the beliefs of one’s group increases the willingness to endorse extreme behavior on behalf of the group. Across two studies, participants were ostracized or included, rated the moral relevance of their group values, and indicated their endorsement of extreme behavior on behalf of the group. Across studies, ostracism increased group moralization in participants high in the need to belong. In Study 2, group moralization translated into endorsement of extreme behavior. Our findings suggest that morality serves a binding function that may be channeled into extreme behaviors. (120 words)     

The influence of social consensus information on intergroup attitudes: the moderating effects of ingroup identification

Two studies examined the role of ingroup identification in the influence of social consensus information (information about others' beliefs) on intergroup attitudes. Research demonstrates that consensus information influences individuals' intergroup attitudes. However, the extent to which individuals identify with the group providing consensus information seems important to understanding consensus effects. In Study 1, 100 high or low ingroup identifiers received information that other ingroup members held favorable or unfavorable attitudes toward African Americans and then provided their own attitudes. In Study 2, 250 participants completed an ingroup identification manipulation (high, low, or control) before receiving favorable or no consensus information. Results of both studies demonstrated that ingroup identification moderated consensus effects, such that high identifiers were more susceptible to others' beliefs than individuals in the low identification and control conditions. In determining critical factors involved in consensus effects, we hope to create a useful method to promote favorable intergroup attitudes and behaviors.     

Go With the Flow or Fight the Power? The Interactive Effects of Social Dominance Orientation and Perceived Injustice on Support for the Status Quo

Previous research in social dominance theory has found an asymmetry in the relationship between social dominance orientation (SDO) and various hierarchy-enhancing ideologies, such that the relationship between the two variables is significantly more positive among high-status group members than among low-status group members (Sidanius, Pratto, & Rabinowitz, 1994; Sidanius, Levin, & Pratto, 1996). Perceptions of systemic injustice toward one's ingroup may help to explain this ideological asymmetry. The hypothesis of a three-way interaction among group status, SDO, and perceived injustice was tested by using survey responses from American university students to predict opposition to hierarchy-attenuating policies as well as levels of patriotism. Analyses revealed the presence of a three-way interaction (ps < .05). Ethnic minority students who scored high on SDO did not always maintain conservative policy stances or strong patriotic attachments—it depends on their level of perceived injustice. Implications for social dominance theory and system-justification theory are discussed.     

The Influence of Social Consensus Information on Intergroup Attitudes: The Moderating Effects of Ingroup Identification

ABSTRACT

Two studies examined the role of ingroup identification in the influence of social consensus information (information about others' beliefs) on intergroup attitudes. Research demonstrates that consensus information influences individuals' intergroup attitudes. However, the extent to which individuals identify with the group providing consensus information seems important to understanding consensus effects. In Study 1, 100 high or low ingroup identifiers received information that other ingroup members held favorable or unfavorable attitudes toward African Americans and then provided their own attitudes. In Study 2, 250 participants completed an ingroup identification manipulation (high, low, or control) before receiving favorable or no consensus information. Results of both studies demonstrated that ingroup identification moderated consensus effects, such that high identifiers were more susceptible to others' beliefs than individuals in the low identification and control conditions. In determining critical factors involved in consensus effects, we hope to create a useful method to promote favorable intergroup attitudes and behaviors.     

Social identification and permeability of group boundaries

Two experiments were conducted to investigate some of the factors affecting social identification. In Experiment 1 ingroup identification was measured for subjects who were members of high or low status groups with either permeable or impermeable boundaries, and who received high, average or low ability feedback. The main results are that (1) members of high status groups show more ingroup identification than members of low status groups (2) members of low status groups with permeable boundaries identify less with their group than members of low status groups with impermeable boundaries and (3) in low status groups ingroup identification decreases as group members have higher individual ability. In Experiment 2, in addition to manipulating group status and individual ability, permeability was further differentiated into separate possibilities for upward and downward mobility. The most important results of Experiment 2 are that (1) members of high status groups show more ingroup identification than members of low status groups and (2) group members with high individual ability identify less with their group when upward mobility is possible than when upward mobility is not possible. These results are discussed in relation to social identity theory.     

The effects of realistic threat and group identification on social dominance orientation

Based on social identity and intergroup threat theories, we argue that social dominance orientation (SDO) can increase as a result of realistic threat, or perceived obstacles to the ingroup’s position and general welfare. However, this effect should be strongest among highly-identified group members, who are particularly concerned with protecting their ingroup against threat. Study 1 found that among non-Asian Americans, racial group identification moderated the relationship between perceptions of realistic threat from Asian Americans and SDO. Study 2 replicated Study 1 using an experimental, rather than correlational, design. Using different social groups, Study 3 showed that non-science college majors who identified strongly with their field of study exhibited higher SDO after being made to feel threatened by science majors. The results from these studies have implications for research on the meaning and antecedents of SDO.     

Perceived discrimination as worldview threat or worldview confirmation: implications for self-esteem

In 3 studies, the authors tested the hypothesis that discrimination targets' worldview moderates the impact of perceived discrimination on self-esteem among devalued groups. In Study 1, perceiving discrimination against the ingroup was negatively associated with self-esteem among Latino Americans who endorsed a meritocracy worldview (e.g., believed that individuals of any group can get ahead in America and that success stems from hard work) but was positively associated with self-esteem among those who rejected this worldview. Study 2 showed that exposure to discrimination against their ingroup (vs. a non-self-relevant group) led to lower self-esteem, greater feelings of personal vulnerability, and ingroup blame among Latino Americans who endorsed a meritocracy worldview but to higher self-esteem and decreased ingroup blame among Latino Americans who rejected it. Study 3 showed that compared with women informed that prejudice against their ingroup is pervasive, women informed that prejudice against their ingroup is rare had higher self-esteem if they endorsed a meritocracy worldview but lower self-esteem if they rejected this worldview. Findings support the idea that perceiving discrimination against one's ingroup threatens the worldview of individuals who believe that status in society is earned but confirms the worldview of individuals who do not.     

Dimensions of social identification with the team as predictors of the coach-created training climate in rugby: A group-actor partner interdependence modelling perspective

Recently, social identity approach has been giving stimulating insights in leadership in sport, considering social identification as a consequence regarding leadership processes. Nonetheless, social identity theory fundamentally posits social identification as a subjacent parameter of cognitions implied in the frame of interpersonal and intergroup relations. The current study aimed to enrich the existing literature by investigating athletes’ team identification as a predictor of the perception of coach-created climate. French male rugby union players (N = 248) completed an online survey measuring the multidimensionality of their social identification to the team, and their perception of the coach-created climate in terms of empowering and disempowering motivational climate. Using Group Actor-Partner Interdependence Modelling, the analyses revealed that the perception of the climate as empowering was driven by high scores on ingroup ties, especially when teammates’ ingroup ties scores were low. Team’s ingroup affect and cognitive centrality resulted in lower perception levels of the empowering climate. Neither player's ingroup ties nor cognitive centrality predicted the perception of the climate as empowering, and when player’s ingroup affect fitted into the group, his perception of a disempowering motivational climate decreased when ingroup affect score was high. The results are mainly discussed to the light of intergroup permeability by underlying the importance of considering social identification as a predictor of the perception of coach-athletes’ relationship. Some practical applications are put forward along with future directions for research on coach-athletes’ relationship. Especially, this study points out the importance of considering the social identity approach of leadership as a transactional relationship encapsulated in a mutual influence between the ingroup member social identification and that of the team as a whole.     

A shared past and a common future: the Portuguese colonial war and the dynamics of group-based guilt

In the present study we examine feelings of group-based guilt among Portuguese people in relation to the Portuguese colonial war, and their consequences for social behaviour. Specifically, we focus on the way Portuguese university students identify with their national group and the outgroup and their feelings of group-based guilt regarding their group's past misdeeds during the colonial period. The consequences of group-based guilt are also analyzed. 130 Portuguese university students answered a questionnaire and results show that students feel low levels of group-based guilt in relation to this period. Our results show that ingroup glorification is positively related with the use of cognitions to justify the ingroup's behaviour, presumably to avoid responsibility for the harm committed by the ingroup. Outgroup identification correlates with compensatory behavioural intentions and openness to negative information about the colonial war. As expected, feelings of group-based guilt show a significant correlation with compensatory behavioural intentions. Links between political orientation, ingroup attachment and glorification, exonerating cognitions and group-based guilt are analyzed and their implications for intergroup relations are discussed.     

Uncovering the diverse cultural bases of social identity: Ingroup ties predict self‐stereotyping among individualists but not among collectivists

On what basis do people form their social identities? To investigate this issue, the present research investigates cross‐cultural differences in self‐stereotyping, a key outcome of social identification. In particular, the research tests the hypothesis that ingroup ties are a stronger predictor of self‐stereotyping among people from individualist cultures than among people from collectivist cultures. In Study 1, university students (N = 117) completed measures of ingroup ties and self‐stereotyping with respect to an intimacy group (family and friends). Consistent with predictions, ingroup ties significantly predicted self‐stereotyping among individualists but not among collectivists. Study 2 (N = 104) found a similar pattern of results among members of the global internet community who considered either an intimacy group (their friends), a task group (their work group) or a social category (their gender). These results indicate that people in individualist cultures are more likely than those in collectivist cultures to base their social identities on ingroup ties. The implications of these results are discussed in relation to self‐categorization theory's depersonalization account of social identification.     

On keeping your enemies close: powerful leaders seek proximity to ingroup power threats

Throughout history, humans have had to detect and deflect myriad threats from their social and physical environment in order to survive and flourish. When people detect a threat, the most common response is avoidance. In the present research, the authors provide evidence that ingroup power threats elicit a very different response. Three experiments supported the hypothesis that dominant leaders seek proximity to ingroup members who pose a threat to their power, as a way to control and downregulate the threat that those members pose. In each experiment, leaders high (but not low) in dominance motivation sought proximity to an ingroup member who threatened their power. Consistent with the hypothesis that increased proximity was designed to help leaders protect their own power, the proximity effect was apparent only under conditions of unstable power (not stable power), only in the absence of intergroup competition (not when a rival outgroup was present), and only toward a threatening group member (not a neutral group member). Moreover, the effect was mediated by perceptions of threat (Experiment 1) and the desire to monitor the threatening group member (Experiment 3). These results shed new light on one key strategy through which dominant leaders try to maintain control over valuable yet potentially threatening group members. Findings have implications for theories of power, leadership, and group behavior.     

When and How Do High Status Group Members Offer Help: Effects of Social Dominance Orientation and Status Threat

The present study explored the implications of an intergroup perspective on individual difference and situational influences on helping, specifically, outgroup members. In particular, we examined the effects of social dominance orientation (SDO) and group status threat on the amount and kind of help offered by Jewish participants (n = 99) to Arab and Jewish students. Dependent measures were the likelihood of helping outgroup and ingroup members across various situations of need and, when help is given, the likelihood that it would be dependency‐oriented rather than autonomy‐oriented assistance. As expected, higher SDO individuals offered less help to outgroup (Arab) students, particularly when they experienced threat to group status, but not to ingroup members. In addition, higher SDO participants, when they did report that they would help, were more likely to offer dependency‐oriented help to outgroup than to ingroup members. The theoretical and applied implications are discussed.     

EVIDENCE THAT GENDER DIFFERENCES IN SOCIAL DOMINANCE ORIENTATION RESULT FROM GENDERED SELF-STEREOTYPING AND GROUP-INTERESTED RESPONSES TO PATRIARCHY

Numerous studies have found that, compared to women, men express higher levels of social dominance orientation (SDO), an individual difference variable reflecting support for unequal, hierarchical relationships between groups. Recent research suggests that the often-observed gender difference in SDO results from processes related to gender group identity. We hypothesized that two aspects of gender group identity could account for men's higher SDO relative to women's: responses to patriarchy that reflect the interests of the gender ingroup (as measured by hostile and benevolent sexism) and self-stereotyping in gendered terms. We found the gender difference in SDO was fully mediated by gender differences in feminine self-stereotyping, hostile sexism, and benevolent sexism. The discussion addresses implications for social dominance theory's treatment of gender and the complexity of social-contextual forces that produce gender differences in SDO.     

Costs and benefits of political ideology: The case of economic self-stereotyping and stereotype threat

Across two experiments, the cognitive salience of a stigmatized ingroup identity harmed self-evaluation and elicited stereotype-consistent behavior to the degree that participants endorsed the political status quo. In Experiment 1, ethnic identity salience caused Filipina domestic workers in Hong Kong to evaluate their own labor as meriting less pay if they were high in social dominance orientation but more pay if they were low in social dominance orientation. In Experiment 2, gender identity salience caused women in the US to evaluate their work on a logic task (but not a verbal task) as meriting less pay if they were politically conservative but more pay if they were politically liberal—a pattern mirrored in task performance. Depending on the degree to which the political status quo is accepted or rejected, findings suggest that members of stigmatized groups can be either implicit participants in their own subjugation or agents of change.     

Examining dispositional and situational effects on outgroup attitudes

Two research lines have dominated the quest for the antecedents of outgroup attitudes. Whereas the first has viewed outgroup attitudes as a result of individual differences, the second stressed the importance of the intergroup situation. In order to investigate the interplay of individual differences and situational characteristics, key predictors of the individual differences perspective (i.e. right‐wing authoritarianism or RWA, and social dominance orientation or SDO) and the intergroup relations perspective (i.e. ingroup identification and ingroup threat) were simultaneously tested. Two studies revealed additive but no interaction effects of RWA and SDO, ingroup identification and threat. Additionally, Study 1 showed that threat effects remain limited to the outgroup that is portrayed as threatening and do not generalize to other outgroups. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.