Effects of in-group and out-group support on behavioral consistency: The majority and minority in the context of an intergroup belief cross

Abstract:   The present study investigated the social determinants required to stimulate consistency in minority members' attitudes and behavior. The experiment was designed to examine the consistency of individuals in the context of an intergroup belief cross wherein the majority belief (or minority) in a categorical in-group shifted to the minority (or majority) in the out-group. The results indicated that the members of a majority within an in-group consistently preserved their behavioral intentions and beliefs even though they were positioned as a minority within an out-group. That is, the minority members in the whole intergroup context maintained consistency diachronically as a result of support from the majority of their in-group. The theoretical implications on the consistency of minority members, such as whistle-blowers in companies, are discussed.     

Minority influence and social categorization

In this article, a theoretical distinction is proposed between representative outgroup minorities (representative of a minority category in the society, e.g. gays) and dissident outgroup minorities (defined as a minority subgroup within a larger outgroup category). Two studies are reported comparing the social influence of dissident outgroup minorities with that of ingroup minorities (belonging to the subject's own social category). It was predicted that a position advocated by a dissident outgroup minority would be more readily accepted than that of an ingroup minority, but that the ingroup minority would be more likely to elicit the generation of new, alternative solutions. A first experiment in which subjects were either exposed to an ingroup minority, an outgroup minority, or no influence source confirmed these predictions. In a second experiment, subjects were either exposed to a majority or to a minority source either belonging to the subject's own social category or to the outgroup. The results indicate that the position of an ingroup majority was readily accepted whereas the otherwise identical message of an outgroup majority was rejected; neither ingroup nor outgroup majority stimulated the development of alternative proposals. Again, in line with Nemeth' (1986a) theory, the position of an ingroup minority was rejected but stimulated the generation of new, alternative proposals. The differential role of social category membership in minority and majority influence and the applicability of Nemeth' (1986a) theory to the attitude change area are discussed.     

Social group salience and interethnic cooperation

This research was designed to test the adequacy of H. Tajfel's (1978, Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations, New York/London: Academic Press) theory of social identity for predicting cooperative behavior among members of ethnically mixed groups. Equally divided by sex, subjects were 24 Anglo-American and 24 Hispanic undergraduate students attending the University of California, Riverside. Subjects were exposed to cooperative and competitive feedback in four-member, same-sex groups which varied in the ratio of Anglo to Hispanic subjects to create two conditions—a 3 to 1 versus a 1 to 3 in-group to out-group composition. Results showed that members of both ethnic groups were equally cooperative when their own group was in the numerical majority (low-salience condition). In the high-salience condition, however, when their own group was in the numerical minority, Hispanic subjects were significantly more competitive than Anglo subjects. In addition, while Hispanics were significantly more competitive in the minority than in the majority condition, Anglos showed a slight tendency to be less competitive in the minority than in the majority condition. These results are discussed in light of social identity theory and its application to the study of interethnic cooperation/competition in heterogeneous groups.     

Perceptual asymmetry in consensus estimates of majority and minority members

Three experiments revealed a consistent pattern of consensus estimates. Numerical status and group growth or decline were manipulated between subjects. Growth was manipulated orthogonally to a 3rd variable: focus. Focus was manipulated by describing growth information with respect either to the in-group or the out-group (e.g., in-group growth and out-group decline). A Numerical Status X Focus interaction emerged in Study 1. Numerical minority members' consensus estimates for an opinion issue increased when growth information was out-group focused, whereas majority members' estimates did not differ as a function of the focus variable. Study 2 replicated these effects across other opinion dimensions. Study 3 confirmed the importance of the growth and focus variables in the absence of numerical status manipulations.     

Race preferences in children: insights from South Africa

Minority-race children in North America and Europe often show less own-race favoritism than children of the majority (White) race, but the reasons for this asymmetry are unresolved. The present research tested South African children in order to probe the influences of group size, familiarity, and social status on children's race-based social preferences. We assessed South African children's preferences for members of their country's majority race (Blacks) compared to members of other groups, including Whites, who ruled South Africa until 1994 and who remain high in status. Black children (3-13 years) tested in a Black township preferred people of their own gender but not race. Moreover, Black, White, and multiracial children (4-9 years) tested in a racially diverse primary school showed in-group bias by gender but not by race: all favored people who were White. Relative familiarity and numerical majority/minority status therefore do not fully account for children's racial attitudes, which vary with the relative social status of different racial groups.     

The effects of status differences,favoured treatment and equity on intergroup comparisons

Studied the effects of status and treatment differentials on in-group bias in an intergroup comparison experiment. The status differential conditions were formed by alleged differences in performance on a prior task between in and out-group. The treatment differential conditions were formed by experimenter's manipulation of a points differential between the in and out-groups. One hundred and fourteen undergraduates were each assigned to one of nine conditions in a 3 × 3 design of high equal low status and favour no favour disfavour. Results indicate a significant status effect (p < 0.01), with in-group bias increasing with status, and a significant favour effect (p < 0.01), with in-group bias decreasing with favour. There is no significant interaction (F < 1). Particular conjunctions of status and treatment represented three conditions oft equity, inequitable advantage, inequitable disadvantage. Contrary to predictions from equity theory, but in accord with predictions from social comparison theory, results indicate in-group bias in all three conditions.     

Intergroup perception as a compromise between in-group bias and fair-mindedness

Previously, perceived competence of and attraction toward targets categorized by race showed in-group bias and no bias, respectively. Consequently, previous investigators regarded intergroup perception as a compromise between the norms of in-group bias and fair-mindedness. An alternative hypothesis for such findings is that attraction is not as relevant a dimension for intergroup discrimination as is competence. To test contrasting predictions of these hypotheses, the present authors asked participants from the majority and minority groups in Singapore (ns = 320) to evaluate either competence of or attraction toward one of the five targets. Consistent with the hypothesis that intergroup perception is a compromise, both dimensions yielded a uniform but weak in-group bias. The participants' equating of the in-group with one out-group further illustrated fair-mindedness. The authors discussed implications of the findings.     

Intergroup competition and its effect on intragroup and intergroup relations

Seventy-two male subjects from lower technical schools were divided into groups of three and assigned to three conditions in which they expected to work together in competition with another group, to work together but independently of the other group, or did not anticipate to work together at all. Subjects who anticipated working together showed a more favorable attitude toward their group and its members than subjects who did not. Moreover, actual social interaction increased in-group attractiveness. Intergroup competition led to a more differentiated leadership structure and a greater consensus about the distribution of influence in the group. Contrary to our predictions, intergroup competition produced no greater in-group solidarity, nor any over-evaluation of the group's product. Low influence persons felt comparatively more positive about their group even before they actually had the opportunity to work together. An attempt was made to relate this finding to the ordinal position of the low status figure, his affiliative tendencies under stress, and his greater social dependence.     

Group size,group status and trait valence as determinants of intergroup bias: Stereotyping in Finland and Sweden

The effects of group size, group status and trait valence (positive or negative stereotypes of in‐ and outgroup) on intergroup bias was studied in nation‐wide probability samples of majority and minority groups in Finland and Sweden, (N = 2479). Ethnolinguistic vitality was used as a proxy for status. It is argued that the specific history of real‐life intergroup relations has to be duly acknowledged when predicting main and interactive effects on intergroup bias in natural contexts. Supporting the predictions made, numerical group size showed a stable main effect; members of numerical minorities showed more bias than members of numerical majorities, regardless of trait valence. While status had no main effect, there was a significant interaction between status and size as well as between status and trait valence: intergroup bias was highest in the high status minority, and low status groups showed less bias than high status groups on negatively valenced traits. In fact, minority members showed the reverse of PNAE. In addition, majority members favoured the outgroup on negatively valenced traits, but favoured their ingroup on positively valenced traits. Different explanations for these results are discussed. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Individuality and group formation: the role of independence and differentiation

This research examined the interplay of group formation and individualization processes with a particular emphasis on minority and majority groups. First, a 2-component theory of individuality that distinguishes between individuality as independence and as differentiation from other people was presented, tested, and cross-validated in 2 questionnaire studies. Next, a pilot experiment provided first support for the working assumption that the salience of the differentiation or independence components of individuality differentially affect minority and majority group formation. Finally, the main experiment demonstrated that these individuality effects on minority and majority group formation are due largely to a differential orientation toward either intergroup or intragroup comparisons. This experiment also uncovered a unique effect of relative in-group size, but this effect was limited to similarity-based group formation.     

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.     

The effects of majority size on minority influence

Two experiments investigated the role of majority size (social pressure) in minority influence. Opposite predictions were derived from an attributional account and two social impact models. In Experiment 1 there was a tendency for minority influence to decrease with increasing majority size when the minority argued against gay rights. The results were stronger and clearer in Experiment 2. For pro-abortion minorities, the minority's impact clearly declined as the size of the opposing majority increased. As predicted by the social impact models, this decline occurred during the initial increase of the majority size. The limitations of the mathematical models are discussed.     

Perceiving minority members as individuals: the effects of relative group size in social categorization

According to the account by comparative distinctiveness, minorities draw attention by virtue of their relative size, leading to more individuation and more stereotyping of their members. Using the ‘Who said what?’ paradigm by Taylor, Fiske, Etcoff, and Ruderman ( 1978 ) in Klauer and Wegener's ( 1998 ) modified version, relative group size of gender categories and age categories was varied in a pilot study and a main experiment, respectively. In the pilot study, memory for discussion statements and in both studies, memory for individuating information increased as subgroup size decreased. Rating measures obtained in the main experiment revealed most stereotyping of minority members. The findings thereby support major predictions of the account by comparative distinctiveness, but demonstrate dissociations between different modes of category‐based processing, i.e. category memory, reconstructive category use, and stereotyping. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Favoritism,Bias, and Error in Performance Ratings of Scientists and Engineers: The Effects of Power,Status, and Numbers

In this paper we argue that the sociostructural position of groups must be taken into consideration along with motivational and cognitive processes to explain evaluations received and made by women, Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians. With this framework, we analyze performance ratings for a sample of 2,445 scientists and engineers from 24 U.S. companies and find that (a) there is more evidence of in-group favoritism than of out-group derogation; (b) high status, dominant, and majority group members enjoy favoritism expressed as a global prototype of them as competent; and (c) subordinate, minority group members overshoot in opposite ways toward other groups depending on their status and the status level of the target group. We find these effects even after controlling for self-reported productivity and for various errors inherent in the evaluation process.     

Political distinctiveness: An identity optimising approach

According to Optimal Distinctiveness Theory and Self-Categorization Theory possible self-definition as a member of contextually moderately distinctive social categories should be more central to identity than association with very general or with highly unique social categories. Data from a large scale cohort survey of 4156 18–21-year-olds were analysed to test this hypothesis. Respondents self-reported political affiliations were classified according to the social popularity (size and support) accorded each party The data are consistent with the hypothesis that minority political parties should provide more central and important bases of social identity Supporters of minority parties showed greatest commitment, perceived their parties to be more representative of themselves, and were less likely to simply conform to parental political views. Minority supporters were also significantly more likely to discuss politics with their friends. Additional data from Scotland confirmed that identification with Scotland was more strongly associated with support for the Scottish Nationalist Party than with support for other minority or majority parties. These data provide convergent evidence that minority parties may attract members through their capacity to provide a meaningful social identity.     

Ethnic group identification and group evaluation among minority and majority groups: testing the multiculturalism hypothesis

Following social identity theory, the author hypothesized that members of minority groups are more likely than majority group members to endorse multiculturalism more strongly and assimilationist thinking less strongly. In addition, the multiculturalism hypothesis proposes that the more minority groups endorse the ideology of multiculturalism (or assimilationism), the more (or less) likely they will be to identify with their ethnic in-group and to show positive in-group evaluation. In contrast, the more majority group members endorse multiculturalism (or assimilationism), the less (or more) likely they are to identify with their ethnic group and to show negative out-group evaluation. Results from 4 studies (correlational and experimental) provide support for this hypothesis among Dutch and Turkish participants living in the Netherlands.     

Being distinctive versus being conspicuous: The effects of numeric status and sex-stereotyped tasks on individual performance in groups

Being in the numeric minority (e.g., being a solo woman in a group of men) influences how well a person performs within a work group. But being the solo member is only one way in which people can be atypical in a group; a person can also represent a social or demographic category that has not typically been associated with the task that the group is working on. Using a design with four categories of group composition (minority, balanced, majority, homogeneous) and two categories of tasks (sex-typical, sex-atypical) we found that the sex composition of the group interacted with the sex typicality of the task to influence both positive deferrals by group members and individual performance in groups. But, rather than consistently reducing performance as prior research has suggested, being numerically atypical enhanced individual performance when the task was typical for that person’s sex. Further, positive deferrals mediated between the interaction of numeric composition and task typicality in influencing individual performance suggesting that both majority group members and the solo member affect one another’s performance in groups. We conclude by discussing why understanding the interplay between these two sources of stereotyping, numeric composition and task typicality, is important for understanding the social nature of individual performance in groups.     

Effects of minority status in the classroom on children's intergroup attitudes

Three studies examined the effects of relative group size on the development of children's intergroup attitudes. The studies employed a novel group paradigm in which elementary school children attending a summer school program were assigned to larger (i.e., majority) or smaller (i.e., minority) novel groups in their classroom (denoted by colored tee-shirts). In each study, relative group size was situated within a different classroom context. Study 1 examined the effects of relative group size when teachers made functional use of the novel groups and were themselves members of the novel groups. Study 2 examined the effects of relative group size in the absence of functional use. Study 3 examined the effects of relative group size when the classroom environment contained implicit messages about group status. In each study, children's intergroup attitudes (e.g., trait ratings, group evaluations) were assessed following several weeks in the classroom. The effect of relative group size on in-group bias was complex, varying as a function of (a) the relative size and salience of groups, (b) the measure used to assess intergroup attitudes, (c) group status (higher or lower), and (d) children's age.     

The emergence and effects of deviants in low and high status groups

We test the proposition, derived from social identity theory and the subjective group dynamics model, that a group member who undermines the in-group’s quest for positive status will be perceived as a “deviant.” Using a minimal group paradigm, participants (N=104) were assigned to either a high or a low status group. They were then confronted with an in-group member who claimed that the status differentials were either legitimate or illegitimate. We found that a group member who claimed that the status differences were legitimate in a low status group, or illegitimate in a high status group, was seen as less valuable to the in-group than a more neutral in-group member. Furthermore, such deviants were less likely to be selected for group leadership than neutral group members. Finally, the presence of a deviant undermined the cohesion of the group. The results are discussed in terms of the social functions of deviant rejection for obtaining or preserving positive group distinctiveness.