Perceived legitimacy of intergroup status differences: its prediction by relative ingroup prototypicality

Research demonstrates that the perceived legitimacy of intergroup status differences has profound effects on intergroup attitudes, emotions and behavior. However, there has only been little intergroup research that predicts the perception of legitimacy. We hypothesize that the perception of legitimate or illegitime status relations depends upon the perceived relative prototypicality of the ingroup for the inclusive category. Since the prototype of the inclusive category provides a normative comparison standard for subgroup evaluation, similarity to this standard (i.e. prototypicality) should be positively evaluated and used to justify high status. A first study in a natural intergroup context (N = 67) offered correlational data in support of the predicted relationship. The second study (N = 60), using Germans as ingroup with Poles as outgroup and Europe as inclusive category, demonstrated that the link between prototypicality and legitimacy is contingent upon the valence of the inclusive category. In order to elucidate the causal direction, the third study manipulated relative prototypicality in an artificial intergroup context (N = 94) and introduced status as a moderator variable. Overall, we found strong support for the hypothesis that legitimacy is related to prototypicality and that this relation is moderated by ingroup status and valence of the inclusive category. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Social comparison,similarity and ingroup favouritism-A replication

Studied the effects of different kinds of similarity between social groups on ingroup favouritism using a modified replication of an experiment by Turner (1978). Instead of replicating the results of Turner, the data showed just the opposite. They are discussed within the framework of social identity theory.     

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.     

Emotional Well-Being Related to Time Pressure,Impediment to Goal Progress,and Stress-Related Symptoms

We propose that emotional well-being in everyday life is partially related to the balance of positive and negative affect associated with everyday routine activities. Factors that interfere with positive affect associated with such activities would therefore have negative impacts on emotional well-being. Supporting that time pressure is one such factor, we find in Study 1 for a representative sample of Swedish employees (n = 1507) answering a survey questionnaire that emotional well-being has a negative relationship to time pressure. In Study 2 we test the hypothesis that the negative effect of time pressure on emotional well-being is jointly mediated by impediment to goal progress and time stress. In another survey questionnaire a sample of Swedish employees (n = 240) answered retrospective questions about emotional well-being at work and off work, experienced impediment to goal progress, experienced time pressure, and stress-related symptoms. Statistical mediation analyses supported the proposed hypothesis.     

Evaluation of aggressive interactions in interpersonal and intergroup contexts

The article deals with possible differences in the evaluation of interpersonal and intergroup aggression. Study I investigated whether the typical perspective-specific divergence in judgments about aggressive interactions (with actors evaluating their behavior as more reasonable and less inappropriate than recipients) varied in interpersonal and intergroup contexts. Additionalty, the possible mediating influence of lay epistemic motivation and subjective judgmental confidence was explored. Results indicated that the social context had an important impact on the evaluation of aggressive interactions: there was a lower dissent between actors and recipients in the intergroup than in the interpersonal condition. However, the direction of this pattern of data differed from what could be derived from theories of aggressive and intergroup behavior. Subjective confidence and lay epistemic motivation did not influence the inappropriatencess ratings. Study II tried to shed some further light on the context-specific evaluation of aggressive interaction by presenting episodes of different severity and by obtaining judgments on both actions as well as reactions. Results showed that-irrespective of severity-aggressive reactions were evaluated more negatively in intergroup contexts. It is proposed that this effect stemmed from context-specific differences in the application of the norm of reciprocity.     

Better or just different? Positive social identity by discrimination against,or by differentiation from outgroups

The object of this study is to explore to what degree the question of ingroup favouritism, brought to light in the framework of ‘social identity theory’, is dependent upon the methods used for measuring this variable. The influence of this factor on ingroup bias was tested under the following three conditions: ‘complementary assessment’, ‘separate assessment’ and ‘choice of dimensions’. This last condition gave the subjects the opportunity to choose which dimensions would be used for assessment. It was found that the degree of ingroup bias is different for each of the three conditions. The results indicate that it is only under certain circumstances that the ingroup distinguishes itself as ‘better’ at the expense of the outgroup. This occurs only if the subjects are not given the opportunity to assess both groups on non-corresponding dimensions, and therefore do not have the possibility to rate them ‘equally good’ but ‘different’.     

Inclusion in a superordinate category, in-group prototypicality, and attitudes towards out-groups

We hypothesized that group members’ attitudes towards an out-group are negatively related to the in-group’s perceived relative prototypicality for a superordinate category, but only if both the in-group and out-group are included in this superordinate category. In Experiment 1 (N=40), Germans’ attitudes towards Poles were negatively correlated with the relative prototypicality of Germans when “Europe” (including Poles), but not when “West-Europe” (excluding Poles), was the superordinate category. In Experiment 2 (N=63), female single parents’ attitudes about the competence of single parents to raise children depended on the in-group’s relative prototypicality for “single parents” (including fathers), but not on their relative similarity to “mothers” (excluding fathers). Both experiments showed that inclusion in a superordinate category had a more negative influence on attitudes towards the out-group when relative in-group prototypicality is high rather than low.     

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.