Comments on the motivational status of self-esteem in social identity and intergroup discrimination

The background and development of motivational hypotheses in social identity theory are examined, revealing two general motives for intergroup discrimination: a desire for cognitive coherence, or good structure; and a need for positive self-esteem. The latter (self-esteem hypothesis: SEH) has received most attention. Both the theoretical and empirical bases of the SEH are largely rooted in research using the minimal group paradigm. However, it remains unclear whether self-esteem is to be considered primarily as a cause or an effect of discrimination. When real social groups are considered the SEH appears to provide only a partial explanation, and a variety of more or less powerful alternative social motives may underlie discriminatory behaviour. We explore some social-structural, individual and interpersonal limits to the SEH, and we call for an awareness of these motives and a re-examination of the good-structure thesis. The SEH, as it stands, provides only a partial contribution to our understanding of the relationship between social identity and discriminatory intergroup behaviour.     

Distinctiveness threat and prototypicality: combined effects on intergroup discrimination and collective self-esteem

The combined influence on ingroup bias of threat to group distinctiveness and prototypicality as a group member was examined in two studies. It was predicted, in line with social identity theory, that threat to group distinctiveness would lead to more ingroup bias. In addition, on the basis of self-categorization theory it was predicted that protypical and peripheral group members would react differently to a threat to their group distinctiveness. Only group members who define themselves as prototypical group members should be motivated to defend their threatened distinctiveness by engaging in increased ingroup bias. This hypothesis was first supported in a modified minimal group setting in which threat was operationalized as overlapping group boundaries. These results were then replicated in a second study, using better-established groups, for whom distinctiveness threat was manipulated in terms of intergroup similarity. Moreover, some support was found in Study 2 for the prediction that the opportunity to engage in intergroup differentiation can, under restricted conditions, enhance group-related self-esteem. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd     

The effects of dichotomous and crossed social categorizations upon intergroup discrimination

The present study explores the effect of crossing social categorizations upon subsequent intergroup discrimination. In the simple categorization conditions, subjects were divided into groups either on an explicitly random basis or on the basis of a very trivial similarity. In the crossed categorization condition, these two categorizations were criss-crossed. After performing a perceptual estimation task, subjects had to evaluate the performance of the different groups in this task. Subsequently they had to evaluate the groups on general characteristics less directly related to task performance. There was significant intergroup discrimination favouring the own group in the two simple categorization conditions, but this discrimination was strongly reduced in the crossed categorization condition. This was true for both kinds of evaluations. Subjects of a no categorization condition exhibited no self-favouritism. The theoretical implications of the data 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.     

Opposing effects of personal and collective self-esteem on interpersonal and intergroup comparisons

The relationship between self-esteem deriving from both personal and social identity and comparisons at both interpersonal and intergroup level was examined. Participants took part in individual and group brainstorming tasks which they later had the opportunity to evaluate. In the case of the individual task, participants' own solutions were judged in conjunction with solutions provided by a member of their ingroup and a member of the outgroup. For the group task, the ingroup solution was compared with an outgroup solution. Both personal and collective self-esteem were found to influence these ratings, but in different ways. In terms of intergroup comparisons, participants with high personal self-esteem (PSE) showed greatest ingroup bias. In contrast, this same effect was associated with low public collective-self esteem (CSE), that is, people who felt that their group was viewed negatively differentiated most strongly. Furthermore, this opposition of the effects of PSE and CSE also applied to the interpersonal comparisons. Participants with high PSE self-enhanced relative to participants with low PSE, while the reverse pertained for CSE scores. Participants with low private CSE rated both their own and the ingroup member's solution more positively than the outgroup solution. An analysis is presented which explains these effects in terms of threat experienced as a result of incongruency between comparative context and optimal identity enhancement strategies. Copyright © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Explanations for racial discrimination: The effect of group discussion on intergroup attributions

Studied the effect of group discussion and racial group membership on attributions concerning the causes of racial discrimination. Twenty- four Black (mostly West Indian) and 24 White adolescents (age 16-19) were assigned in pairs to each cell of a 2 (Race of subject: Black/White) × 2 (Discussion/No Discussion) ‘mixed’ design. Each subject read four items exemplifying types of racial discrimination and attributed each to negative dispositions of Black people and/or discrimination by White authority figures (‘the system’). Subjects in the Discussion condition spent two minutes discussing each item prior to making their judgements. Ratings of ingroup and outgroup on eight attitudinal dimensions were also elicited, followed by a social distance measure. Multivariate analyses of variance revealed effects for racial group membership (p < 0.05) and group discussion (p < 0.05) on attributions. Further examination of the data by means of discriminant analyses indicated which items differentiate between the groups. Data based on the attitudinal ratings were also subjected to multivariate analyses and point to the positive group-image of the Black respondents and a lack of intergroup discrimination by the White subjects; the social distance scores of the latter subjects are, however, higher. Results are discussed in terms of the literature on group polarization and intergroup differentiation.     

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.     

The invalidity of disclaimers about the effects of social feedback on self-esteem

Despite the fact that several theories suggest that people's self-esteem is affected by social approval and disapproval, many individuals steadfastly maintain that how other people regard them has no effect on how they feel about themselves. To examine the validity of these beliefs, two experiments compared the effects of social approval and disapproval on participants who had indicated either that their self-esteem is affected by how other people evaluate them or that their self-esteem is unaffected by interpersonal evaluation. Results of both studies converged to show that approval and disapproval clearly affected the self-esteem of even those individuals who denied that social evaluations affected their feelings about themselves.     

Individual,social group and intergroup behaviour. Some conceptual remarks on the social identity theory

An investigation of the group concept proposed by Tqjfel and Turner shows that group formation and intergroup behaviour cannot be explained by the similarity of group members. Taking into account only similarity of elements leads to conceptual contaminations concerning group and class, group and collective, personal and social identity, and finally interpersonal and intergroup behaviour. It is claimed that only the consideration of group structure and the differentiation of partially individual and partially structural attributes of the group members results in a conceptually adequate theory of group formation and intergroup behaviour of its members.     

Longitudinal effects of contact on intergroup relations: The role of majority and minority group membership and intergroup emotions

A field study was conducted in the Italian context to examine the longitudinal effects of contact on improved intergroup relations, and to test whether the effects were different for majority and minority group members. Furthermore, we examined the processes underlying contact effects. Participants were 68 Italian (majority) and 31 immigrant (minority) secondary school students, who completed a questionnaire at two time points. The results of regression analyses showed that, consistent with the contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954 ), quantity and quality of contact longitudinally improved outgroup evaluation and increased the attribution of positive stereotypes to the outgroup; the reverse paths were non‐significant. Notably, whereas quantity of contact improved intergroup attitudes and stereotypes for both majority and minority participants, quality of contact had reliable effects only for the majority group. Intergroup anxiety and empathy mediated the longitudinal effects of quantity of contact for both Italians and immigrants; the cross‐lagged effects of contact quality on criterion variables for the Italian group were mediated by intergroup empathy. The theoretical and practical implications of findings are discussed. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The effects of social category norms and stereotypes on explanations for intergroup differences

A 2-stage model of the construction of explanations for differences between groups is presented. Category norms affect which of 2 groups becomes "the effect to be explained," and stereotypes shape attributions about that group. In 3 experiments, 288 participants wrote explanations for differences between gay and straight men. Explanations focused on gay men who were also judged to have more mutable attributes. However, these effects were not correlated. Participants focused explanations on straight men when explicitly instructed to do so (Experiment 1). Explanations focused on both groups equally when the gay men constituted the numerically larger sample, when gay men were more typical of the overarching category (i.e., people with AIDS) than straight men, or when more straight men were described as performing the behavior (Experiment 2). Stereotype-consistent information prompted more essentialist references and fewer reconstructive references to gay men than did stereotype-inconsistent information (Experiment 3). The relevance of this model for theories of norms, stereotypes, and for the conduct of social science is discussed.     

The minimal group paradigm: Categorization into two versus three groups

The minimal group paradigm (Tajfel, Billig, Bundy and Flament, 1971) has been influential in the study of intergroup relations. Thus far, most minimal group experiments have divided the subjects either into two groups, or have categorized them on two separate dichotomous dimensions in cross-categorization experiments. This study examines the minimal group paradigm using three distinct and independent groups. Comparison of the results with three minimal groups with those of a baseline two-group experiment shows that with a three-group structure there is no significant ingroup bias. It is suggested that the two-group minimal group experiment shows ingroup bias because subjects access a dichotomous categorization, and that this dichotomous categorization primes a competitive orientation. A two-group context may be particularly efective in evoking an ‘us versus them’ contrast. Self-categorization as a group member is more likely to occur in the presence of two groups whereas three minimal groups renders an ‘us–them’ contrastive orientation less salient. The absence of intergroup discrimination found in the present minimal group study may be limited to the behaviour of minimal or artificially created groups. In the real world of intergroup relations discrimination towards multiple outgroups is a well-known phenomenon. While this study should be regarded as only preliminary research, further elaboration and specification of the conditions under which multiple group contexts may hinder intergroup discrimination is required.     

Deconfounding the effects of dominance and social acceptance on self-esteem.

Three studies examined the independent effects of social acceptance and dominance on self-esteem. In Studies 1 and 2, participants received false feedback regarding their relative acceptance and dominance in a laboratory group, and state self-esteem was assessed. Results indicated that acceptance and dominance feedback had independent effects on self-esteem. Study 2 showed that these effects were not moderated by individual differences in participants' self-reported responsivity to being accepted versus dominant. In Study 3, participants completed multiple measures of perceived dominance, perceived acceptance, and trait self-esteem. Results showed that both perceived dominance and perceived acceptance accounted for unique variance in trait self-esteem, but that perceived acceptance consistently accounted for substantially more variance than perceived dominance. Also, trait self-esteem was related to the degree to which participants felt accepted by specific people in their lives, but not to the degree to which participants thought those individuals perceived them as dominant.     

Children's social groups and intergroup prejudice: Assessing the influence and inhibition of social group norms

A simulation group study examined whether the effects of group norms on 7‐ and 9‐year‐old children's intergroup attitudes can be moderated by a contrary school norm. Children learnt that their school had an inclusion norm, were assigned to a group with an outgroup inclusion or exclusion norm, and indicated their ingroup and outgroup attitudes under teacher surveillance or not. Results revealed reduced outgroup liking when the group had an exclusion norm, but that the effect was moderated when the school had an inclusion norm, especially among the older children. The participants’ ingroup liking was also reduced, but teacher surveillance had no effect on attitudes. The findings are discussed in relation to possible strategies to moderate social group norm effects.     

When shared group membership signifies shared subjective experience: I-sharing and the minimal group paradigm

Ingroup favoritism is pervasive. It emerges even in the minimal group paradigm, where participants are assigned to novel groups based on seemingly insignificant characteristics. Yet many of the grouping schemes used in minimal group research may imply something significant: namely, that ingroup members will share in-the-moment subjective experience, or I-share. Two studies examine the role of inferred I-sharing in the minimal group paradigm. We found that (1) people inferred that they would I-share with ingroup members more than outgroup members; (2) inferred I-sharing increased ingroup favoritism; and (3) inferred I-sharing accounted for this ingroup favoritism. Moreover, expecting to I-share with the outgroup improved participants’ attitudes toward the outgroup. These results converge with other research suggesting that people favor ingroup members, in part, because they expect to I-share with them.