Skip to main content
Original Communication

Self-Depersonalization and Ingroup Favoritism in Minimal Group Hierarchies

Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1024/1421-0185/a000202

Abstract. Research suggests that members of low-status groups are more likely than members of high-status groups to show self-depersonalization and to favor ingroup members over outgroup members. The present research tests two alternative explanations of this status asymmetry: One explanation is based on the motive for achieving a positive social identity, and the other explanation is based on the willingness to cope with a social identity threat. Three minimal group experiments examine these two explanations. Supporting the identity motive explanation, the findings show that self-depersonalization (Studies 1–3) and ingroup favoritism (Study 3) are less prominent in the high-status group than in the low-status and the status-unspecified groups. Moreover, the results do not support the identity threat explanation because self-depersonalization and ingroup favoritism were not weaker in the low-status group than in the status-unspecified group.

References

  • Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Funder, D. C. (2007). Psychology As The Science Of Self-reports And Finger Movements. Psychological Science, 2, 396–403. doi 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00051.x First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Bettencourt, B. A., Charlton, K., Dorr, N., & Hume, D. L. (2001). Status differences and in-group bias: A meta-analytic examination of the effects of status stability, status legitimacy, and group permeability. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 520–542. doi 10.1037//0033-2909.127.4.520 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Branscombe, N. R., Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (1999). The context and content of social identity threat. In N. EllemersR. SpearsB. DoosjeEds., Social identity: Context, commitment (pp. 35–58). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Branscombe, N. R., & Wann, D. L. (1994). Collective self-esteem consequences of outgroup derogation when a valued social identity is on trial. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 641–657. doi 10.1002/ejsp.2420240603 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cadinu, M., Latrofa, M., & Carnaghi, A. (2013). Comparing self-stereotyping with in-group-stereotyping and out-group-stereotyping in unequal-status groups: The case of gender. Self and Identity, 12, 582–596. doi 10.1080/15298868.2012.712753 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 96, 608–630. doi 10.1037/0033-295X.96.4.608 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cunningham, E., & Platow, M. J. (2007). On helping lower status out-groups: The nature of the help and the stability of the intergroup status hierarchy. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 258–264. doi 10.1111/j.1467-839X.2007.00234.x First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Deschamps, J.-C., & Personnaz, B. (1979). �tudes entre groupes dominants et dominés: Importance de la présence du hors-groupe dans les discriminations évaluatives et comportementales [Studies between dominants and dominated groups: Importance of the outgroup’s presence in evaluative and behavioral discriminations]. Social Science Information, 18, 269–305. doi 10.1177/053901847901800205 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (2002). Self and social identity. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 161–186. doi 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135228 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Grier, S. A., & Deshpandé, R. (2001). Social dimensions of consumer distinctiveness: The influence of social status on group identity and advertising persuasion. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 216–224. doi 10.1509/jmkr.38.2.216.18843 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Iacoviello, V., & Lorenzi-Cioldi, F. (2015). Individualistic tendencies: When group status makes the difference. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 18, 540–556. doi 10.1177/1368430214552332 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kraus, M. W., Piff, P. K., Mendoza-Denton, R., Rheinschmidt, M. L., & Keltner, D. (2012). Social class, solipsism, and contextualism: How the rich are different from the poor. Psychological Review, 119, 546–572. doi 10.1037/a0028756 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kuhl, J. (1986). Motivation and information processing: A new look at decision making, dynamic change and action control. In R. M. SorrentinoE. T. HigginsEds., Handbook of motivation and cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 404–434). New York: Guilford. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Lent, R. W., Schmidt, J., & Schmidt, L. (2006). Collective efficacy beliefs in student work teams: Relation to self-efficacy, cohesion, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 73–84. doi 10.1016/j.jvb.2005.04.001 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lorenzi-Cioldi, F. (1998). Group status and perceptions of homogeneity. European Review of Social Psychology, 9, 31–75. doi 10.1080/ 14792779843000045 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lorenzi-Cioldi, F. (2008). Group homogeneity perception in status hierarchies: The moderating effect of the salience of group status differentials. International Review of Social Psychology, 21, 67–111. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Marques, J., Abrams, D., & Serôdio, R. G. (2001). Being better by being right: Subjective group dynamics and derogation of in-group deviants when generic norms are undermined. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 436–447. doi 10.1037//0022-3514.81.3.436 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • McGuire, W. J., McGuire, C. V., Child, P., & Fujioka, T. (1978). Salience of ethnicity in the spontaneous self-concept as a function of one’s ethnic distinctiveness in the social environment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 511–520. doi 10.1037/0022-3514.36.5.511 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Norušis, M. J. (2005). SPSS 13.0 advanced statistical procedures companion. London, UK: Prentice Hall. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Quiamzade, A., Mugny, G., Konan, P., Darnon, C., & Bridge, E. (2017). The confrontation between competent peers: When success leads to hindrance. Manuscript submitted for publication. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Rubin, M., Badea, C., & Jetten, J. (2014). Low status groups show in-group favoritism to compensate for their low status and compete for higher status. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17, 563–576. doi 10.1177/1368430213514122 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Rubin, M., & Hewstone, M. (2004). Social identity, system justification, and dominance: Commentary on Reicher, Jost et al., and Sidanius et al. Political Psychology, 25, 823–844. doi 10.1111/ j.1467-9221.2004.00400.x First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Scheepers, D., & Ellemers, N. (2005). When the pressure is up: The assessment of social identity threat in low and high status groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 192–200. doi 10.1016/j.jesp.2004.06.002 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Scheepers, D., Spears, R., Doosje, B., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2002). Integrating identity and instrumental approaches to intergroup differentiation: Different contexts, different motives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1455–1467. doi 10.1177/ 014616702237574 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Scheepers, D., Spears, R., Doosje, B., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2006). Diversity in in-group bias: Structural factors, situational features, and social functions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 944–960. doi 10.1037/0022-3514.90.6.944 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359–1366. doi 10.1177/0956797611417632 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Simon, B., & Brown, R. (1987). Perceived intragroup homogeneity in minority-majority contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 703–711. doi 10.1037//0022-3514.53.4.703 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149–178. doi 10.1002/ejsp.2420010202 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. AustinS. WorchelEds., The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Turner, J., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Wombacher, J., & Felfe, J. (2012). United we are strong: An investigation into sense of community among navy crews. Armed Forces & Society, 38, 557–581. doi 10.1177/0095327X11428787 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar