Self-Depersonalization and Ingroup Favoritism in Minimal Group Hierarchies
Abstract
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
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
(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
(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.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
(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
(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
(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
(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 10.1177/0539018479018002052002). Self and social identity. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 161–186. doi 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135228
(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
(2015). Individualistic tendencies: When group status makes the difference. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 18, 540–556. doi 10.1177/1368430214552332
(2012). Social class, solipsism, and contextualism: How the rich are different from the poor. Psychological Review, 119, 546–572. doi 10.1037/a0028756
(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.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
(1998). Group status and perceptions of homogeneity. European Review of Social Psychology, 9, 31–75. doi 10.1080/ 14792779843000045
(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.
(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
(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
(2005). SPSS 13.0 advanced statistical procedures companion. London, UK: Prentice Hall.
(2017). The confrontation between competent peers: When success leads to hindrance. Manuscript submitted for publication.
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(1971). Social categorization and intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149–178. doi 10.1002/ejsp.2420010202
(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.1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.
(2012). United we are strong: An investigation into sense of community among navy crews. Armed Forces & Society, 38, 557–581. doi 10.1177/0095327X11428787
(