Intergroup Differentiation: Stereotyping as a Function of Status Hierarchy

Abstract

The authors explored how negative intergroup comparisons affect intergroup differentiation. More specifically, they tested the prediction that the in-group's negative intergroup comparisons with a high-status group would result in more negative stereotyping of a lower status out-group. The authors elicited stereotypes of a lower status university in 2 conditions. In the 1st, the participants judged only the middle-ranking university in-group and a lower status university. In the 2nd, those judgments followed comparison with a higher status university. In the 2nd condition, there was an increased differentiation between the in-group and the lower status out-group because of the more negative stereotyping of the lower status out-group. This evidence of intergroup differentiation was found only on the dimension judged most important and along which the in-group was negatively compared with the higher status group.     

Devaluing domains in response to threatening intergroup comparisons: perceived legitimacy and the status value asymmetry

Group status and status legitimacy were tested as moderators of devaluing in response to threatening intergroup comparisons. In 3 experiments, participants received feedback comparing their in-group (based on school or gender) to a higher or lower status out-group. When the legitimacy of group status differences was assumed (Studies 1 and 2) or manipulated (Study 3), participants devalued the domain when their in-group compared unfavorably with a lower status out-group but did not devalue the domain when their in-group compared unfavorably with a higher status out-group. In Study 3, this status value asymmetry was eliminated when status differences were delegitimized. Mediational analyses suggested that the status value asymmetry was explained by the perceived utility of the domain for gaining status-relevant rewards.     

Status conferral in intergroup social dilemmas: behavioral antecedents and consequences of prestige and dominance

Bridging the literatures on social dilemmas, intergroup conflict, and social hierarchy, the authors systematically varied the intergroup context in which social dilemmas were embedded to investigate how costly contributions to public goods influence status conferral. They predicted that contribution behavior would have opposite effects on 2 forms of status-prestige and dominance-depending on its consequences for the self, in-group and out-group members. When the only way to benefit in-group members was by harming out-group members (Study 1), contributions increased prestige and decreased dominance, compared with free-riding. Adding the option of benefitting in-group members without harming out-group members (Study 2) decreased the prestige and increased the dominance of those who chose to benefit in-group members via intergroup competition. Finally, sharing resources with both in-group and out-group members decreased perceptions of both prestige and dominance, compared with sharing them with in-group members only (Study 3). Prestige and dominance differentially mediated the effects of contribution behavior on leader election, exclusion from the group, and choices of a group representative for an intergroup competition. Taken together, these findings show that the well-established relationship between contribution and status is moderated by both the intergroup context and the conceptualization of status.     

On helping lower status out-groups: The nature of the help and the stability of the intergroup status hierarchy

The current research expanded upon previous theoretical and empirical arguments regarding the nature of intergroup helping. In doing so, we considered the role of relative in-group status, the stability of this status, and the type of help provided. In a scenario study, we observed that members of a relatively high status group more strongly supported the provision of assistance to in-group members than members of a lower status out-group when the assistance was empowering in nature and when the high in-group status was unstable. When the intergroup status differences were stable, however, support for empowerment help to members of a lower status out-group was not significantly lower than support for such help to in-group members. We discuss these data with reference to realistic intergroup conflict theory and social identity theory.     

Looking down and ramping up: The impact of status differences on effort in intergroup contexts

This paper examines how the status of an out-group impacts effort in intergroup settings. The results provide evidence that people work harder when their individual performance is compared to a lower, as opposed to higher, status out-group member. Moreover, comparisons to a lower status out-group were found to elicit motivation gains as these participants worked harder than participants in the control (Studies 1-3) or in-group comparison conditions (Studies 2 and 3). In Study 4, evidence for the role of threat as an underlying mechanism was provided as gains in effort for those compared with a lower status out-group member were eliminated when participants self- or group-affirmed prior to comparison. Finally, Study 5 shows that both social identity threat and self-categorization threat underlie increases in effort for participants compared to a lower status out-group member. We detail a theoretical basis for our claim that performance comparisons with lower status out-group members are especially threatening, and discuss the implications for this research in terms of social identity and self-categorization theories as they relate to effort in intergroup contexts.     

In-group favoritism among Native and immigrant Turkish Cypriots: trait evaluations of in-group and out-group targets

The authors investigated whether in-group favoritism manifests itself as praise for the in-group- or as denigration of the out-group. A total of 450 Turkish Cypriots (248 native, 202 immigrant) judged the applicability of positive and negative trait words to in-group and out-group targets. Both the native and the immigrant groups judged the positive traits as more applicable to their respective in-groups than to the out-group. The native group evaluated the negative social traits as more applicable to the immigrant group. The immigrant group also judged the negative social traits as more applicable to themselves. The two groups did not differ in their judgments for more personal negative traits.     

In-Group Favoritism Among Native and Immigrant Turkish Cypriots: Trait Evaluations of In-Group and Out-Group Targets

Abstract

The authors investigated whether in-group favoritism manifests itself as praise for the in-group or as denigration of the out-group. A total of 450 Turkish Cypriots (248 native, 202 immigrant) judged the applicability of positive and negative trait words to in-group and out-group targets. Both the native and the immigrant groups judged the positive traits as more applicable to their respective in-groups than to the out-group. The native group evaluated the negative social traits as more applicable to the immigrant group. The immigrant group also judged the negative social traits as more applicable to themselves. The two groups did not differ in their judgments for more personal negative traits.     

Differentiation in Understanding One's Own and the Adversary's Identity in Protracted Intergroup Conflict: Zionism and Palestinianism

This study examines the meaning of identity for in-group and out-group members in protracted intergroup conflict, and the extent of differentiation people show in understanding in-group and out-group national identity. Based on the differential familiarity hypothesis, it was hypothesized that group members will show more differentiation when referring to in-group than to out-group identity. Based on the established relationship between cognitive complexity and political ideology, it was hypothesized that supporters of conciliatory political parties will demonstrate more differentiation when referring to in-group and out-group identity than supporters of nonconciliatory parties. These hypotheses were confirmed in a study that asked Arab and Jewish high-school students in Israeli schools about the meaning of Zionism and Palestinian identity.     

Implicit associations as the seeds of intergroup bias: how easily do they take root?

Three experiments provided evidence that intergroup bias occurs automatically under minimal conditions, using the Implicit Association Test (IAT). In Experiment 1, participants more readily paired in-group names with pleasant words and out-group names with unpleasant words, even when they were experienced only with the in-group and had no preconceptions about the out-group. Participants in Experiment 2 likewise showed an automatic bias favoring the in-group, even when in-group/out-group exemplars were completely unfamiliar and identifiable only with the use of a heuristic. In Experiment 3, participants displayed a pro-in-group IAT bias following a minimal group manipulation. Taken together, the results demonstrate the ease with which intergroup bias emerges even in unlikely conditions.     

Self-esteem and in-group bias among members of a religious social category

In a sample of New Zealand university students, the author extended earlier research into the relationship between self-esteem and intergroup discrimination. He found no support for the hypothesis that social-category members (i.e., Christians) experience an elevation in the domain of self-esteem (i.e., religious self-esteem) judged as more relevant to the in-group after evaluations favoring the in-group. Regardless of whether the evaluation targets behaved positively or negatively, the respondents in the experimental condition evaluated in-group (Christian) targets more highly than out-group (Atheist) targets. After evaluations favoring the in-group, the respondents did not experience an elevation of religious self-esteem, global self-esteem, or mathematical self-esteem (judged as less relevant to the in-group).     

Social categorization, self-esteem, and the estimated musical preferences of male adolescents.

The authors investigated the intergroup processes of male adolescents within the context of social identity theory (SIT; H. Tajfel, 1978; H. Tajfel & J. C. Turner, 1979). The participants were English male adolescents (age = 14-15 years). They estimated in-group and out-group musical preferences and evaluated the in-group and out-group along a series of scales. The results showed in-group favoritism effects along the musical preference and evaluative dimensions. The participants reported greater liking for the in-group. Compared with the out-group, they associated the in-group more with positively stereotyped music and less with negatively stereotyped music. Compared with the out-group, they rated the in-group as more fun, more masculine, more sporty, less boring, less snobbish, and less weird. The participants with lower levels of self-esteem showed greater differentiation between groups and greater derogation of the out-group. The results supported the predictions of SIT and demonstrated the applicability of SIT for the study of adolescent behavior.     

Self-Esteem and In-Group Bias Among Members of a Religious Social Category

Abstract

In a sample of New Zealand university students, the author extended earlier research into the relationship between self-esteem and intergroup discrimination. He found no support for the hypothesis that social-category members (i.e., Christians) experience an elevation in the domain of self-esteem (i.e., religious self-esteem) judged as more relevant to the in-group after evaluations favoring the in-group. Regardless of whether the evaluation targets behaved positively or negatively, the respondents in the experimental condition evaluated in-group (Christian) targets more highly than out-group (Atheist) targets. After evaluations favoring the in-group, the respondents did not experience an elevation of religious self-esteem, global self-esteem, or mathematical self-esteem (judged as less relevant to the in-group).     

I know you are, but what am I? Self-evaluative consequences of judging in-group and out-group members.

When judging another person, people often spontaneously compare this person with themselves. Six studies examined the self-evaluative consequences of such spontaneous comparisons with in-group versus out-group members. They demonstrate that spontaneous comparisons with in-group members primarily involved the activation of specific individuating knowledge about the self. In particular, knowledge indicating that the self is similar to the judged target was rendered accessible. As a consequence, subsequent self-evaluations that were based on the implications of accessible self-knowledge were assimilated toward in-group targets. Spontaneous comparisons with out-group members, however, primarily involved the activation of more general category knowledge about the self. Specifically, knowledge about judges' membership in a group that distinguished them from the target was rendered accessible. Consequently, self-evaluations were contrasted away from out-group targets.     

Implications for the self determine benevolence and self-protection in intergroup relations

People often favor groups they belong to over those beyond the in-group boundary. Yet, in-group favoritism does not always occur, and people will sometimes favor an out-group over the in-group. We delineate theoretically when in-group favoritism (i.e., self-protection) and out-group favoritism (i.e., benevolence) should occur. In two experiments, groups’ relative status and competence stereotypes were manipulated; groups’ outcomes were non-contingent in Experiment 1 and contingent in Experiment 2. When allocating reward, members of a low-status group were self-protective, favoring the in-group over the out-group under both non-contingent and contingent outcomes. Those with high status benevolently favored the out-group when outcomes were non-contingent, but were self-protective with contingent outcomes. People were willing to engage in social activities with an out-group member regardless of competence. However, when task collaboration had implications for the self, those with low status preferred competent over less competent out-group members. Traits of high status targets were differentiated by those with low status in both experiments, whereas those with high status differentiated low-status members’ traits only when outcomes were contingent. A general principle fits the data: The implications of intergroup responses for the self determine benevolence and self-protection.     

Diversity in in-group bias: structural factors, situational features, and social functions

Four experiments addressed the different forms and functions of in-group bias in different contexts. The authors proposed 2 functions: an identity-expressive function and an instrumental function (or promotion of positive social change). The authors manipulated status differentials, the stability of these differences, and the communication context (intra- vs. intergroup) and measured in-group bias and both functions. As predicted, identity expression via in-group bias on symbolic measures was most important for stable, high-status groups. By contrast, material in-group bias for instrumental motives was most prevalent in unstable, low-status groups but only when communicating with in-group members. This latter effect illustrates the strategic adaptation of group behavior to audience (i.e., displaying in-group bias may provoke the out-group and be counterproductive in instrumental terms). Stable, low-status groups displayed more extreme forms of in-group bias for instrumental reasons regardless of communication context (i.e., they had nothing to lose). Results are discussed in terms of a contextual-functional approach to in-group bias.     

What Is Social about Justice? Inclusive Identity and Group Values as the Basis of the Justice Motive

Three studies tested the claim that the justice motive is based on commitment to the perceived values of the “primary category” of potential recipients of an allocation. In Study 1, participants who identified more strongly with their group regarded a member who represented the group's strengths as more entitled to a common profit. In Study 2, participants judged their own entitlement versus that of a member who represented the group's strengths. Members who identified more strongly with their group were less likely to display self-interest in their judgments. In Study 3, participants judged the entitlement of an in-group member representing out-group strengths versus an out-group member representing in-group strengths. When identification with the primary category (including in-group and out-group) was strong, members who identified more strongly with their in-group viewed the out-group member representing in-group values as more deserving.     

Projecting group liking and ethnocentrism on in-group members: False consensus effect of attitude strength

The purpose of the present study was to examine the social projection effect concerning the strength of national attitudes. Japanese respondents sampled from the general population judged how patriotic and nationalistic opinions were distributed among Japanese (i.e. in-group) and American (out-group) citizens. The respondents' own positions regarding these attitude dimensions were also measured. As predicted, the respondents inflated estimates of the endorsement for positions close to their own, particularly when the target was the in-group. Estimates of opinion distributions in the out-group converged around stereotypic positions. The apparent projection effect in patriotism (i.e. in-group liking) was likely mediated by abstract trait evaluations of the home country, while the projection of nationalism (i.e. ethnocentrism) appeared to be a direct result of projection without such mediation. Different processes such as the motivation for cognitive consistency and the need to achieve social identity of the group were suggested to underlie projection effects in different domains. Implications of the results for the study of stereotyping and intergroup conflict are discussed.     

Social identification structures the effects of perspective taking

Researchers who study perspective taking are generally optimistic about the potential for interventions to improve intergroup perceptions. The current research provides new insight into the conditions that frame the intergroup outcomes of perspective taking. The results show that the effects of perspective taking are not always positive but depend on perspective takers' degree of identification with the in-group. In two experiments, we demonstrated that adopting the perspective of an out-group member can have damaging effects on intergroup perceptions among group members who are highly identified with the in-group. Specifically, compared with less committed members, those who identified highly with the in-group used a greater number of negative traits to describe the out-group following perspective taking. Such perspective taking also led participants with high in-group identification to judge the out-group less favorably. Understanding how social identity concerns frame the outcome of perspective taking is crucial to its effective employment in intergroup-relations programs.     

Trait ratings of the in-group and out-group with minimal acquaintance: Differentiation and out-group favorability

Malloy et al. (2011) studied trait judgments and behavior of Black and White men during face-to-face interactions at zero-acquaintance and found that intergroup responses were asymmetric. The present research extends that work. In Study 1 Black and White men observed two dyadic interactions from the Malloy et al (2011) study and rated in-group targets’ traits. In Study 2, using the type generation paradigm, Black and White males and females generated types of persons from their racial in-group or out-group and rated their traits. Blacks differentiated the unique traits of Whites to a greater extent than Whites differentiated the unique traits of Blacks. Blacks and Whites judged out-group targets’ traits more positively than those of in-group members, and both differentiated the unique traits of in-group members more than out-group members.     

The Effect of Intra- and Intergroup Leadership on Group Goal Attainment in a North-South Gaming Simulation

This research investigated the role of leadership functions in a context of intergroup negotiation by using a simulation game of inter-regional conflict and cooperation (SIRC²). As a part of their social psychology course, 151 undergraduate students participated. It was hypothesized that there are four leadership factors in an intergroup context: in-group performance, in-group maintenance, out-group negotiation performance, and out-group relation maintenance. According to a factor analysis, however, the functions of in-group performance and out-group performance merged into the same category and could not be differentiated independently. Moreover, this research provided evidence that opportunities for intergroup communication and the amount of resources available to each group can facilitate these leadership functions. This study also found links between leadership functions and group outcomes. In a group with members who were homogeneous and facing common survival problems, the in-group/out-group performance function facilitated the achievement of the group goal. On the other hand, in a group with members with different roles, and who were self-sufficient for survival, the in-group maintenance function facilitated the achievement of the group goal. Moreover, in the intergroup context, the out-group relationship maintenance function was also important for group goal attainment. These results were interpreted using the path–goal theory and Fiedler's contingency theory.