Defence Research Reports

Transcription

DR
RDC No. CR
R2012-077
A REVIEW OF
O SOCIA
AL SCIENCE LITER
RATURE ON SOCIAL
IDEN
NTITY DY
YNAMICS
S AND SC
CIENTIFIC
C FUNDAM
MENTALISM
byy:
Irene Cheung, Yvonne DeW
Wit, Emily-A
Ana Filardo,, Michael H
H. Thomson
n, and
Barbara D
D. Adams
Hum
mansystemss® Incorporatted
111 Farq uhar St.,
Guelph, ON
N N1H 3N4
Project M
Manager:
Michael H. Thomson
(519)
(
836 59
911 ext. 301
PWGSC
P
Con
ntract No.: W
W7711-088136/001/TOR
R
Call-up No .: 8136-11
half of
On Beh
ATIONAL D
DEPARTM
MENT OF NA
DEFENCE
as repressented by
Canadian Force Le
eadership In
nstitute
Canadian Defe
ence Academ
my
PO Box 17000, Station Forcces
Kiingston, Onttario, Canada
K7K 7B4
Scientific A
Authority:
Afzal Upal
416-635-200
4
00, ext. 2170
0
March 2012
Authorr
Mic
chael H. Th
homson
®
Humansystems Incorporate d
The scientific or technical va
alidity of this conttract report is enttirely the responssibility of the Con
ntractor and the ccontents
do not necessarily have th
he approval or en
ndorsement of D
Defence R&D Can
nada.
© Her Ma
ajesty the Que
een as repres
sented by the Minister of N
National De
© Sa ma
ajesté la reine
e, représentée
e par le ministre de la Défe
Abstrract
The main purpose
p
of thee Human Terrrain Visualizaation and Sim
mulation (HTV
Vis) project iss to
develop com
mputer tools that
t can help Canadian deccision makerss envision andd simulate asppects of
human terraain. The preseent report rev
views literaturre from Sociaal Identity Theeory (SIT; Taajfel and
Turner, 197
79) to help thee developmen
nt of such com
mputer tools ffor use in Cannadian Forcess (CF)
training inittiatives. This review was guided
g
by threee primary quuestions:
1. How do sociostrructural belieffs influence ssocial identityy managemennt strategies foor high and
low
w status group
ps?
2. How do sociostrructural belieffs influence inntergroup perrceptions?
3. How do social id
dentity manag
gement strateegies influencce intergroup pperceptions?
ow that belieffs about socioostructural varriables (i.e., pperceptions off status
The papers reviewed sho
stability, legitimacy, and
d permeability
y) can influennce identity m
management strategies (i.e., social
competition
n, individual mobility,
m
or social
s
creativiity). Researchh suggests thaat, even thouggh high
and low staatus groups may
m have diffeerent motivatiions, they mayy use similar or different sstrategies.
But this is often
o
dependeent on the lev
vel of identificcation with thhe ingroup andd their percepptions of
the sociostrructural conteext. Results off the literaturee review also showed som
me research exxamining
the impact of sociostructtural beliefs on
o intergroup perceptions. There is veryy little researcch that
addresses th
he impact of identity
i
manaagement strateegies on interrgroup percepptions. Howevver, there
is research considering other
o
kinds off strategies, ouutside of the tthree core strategies, and hhow these
impact percceptions. Ano
other goal of the
t project waas to examinee psychologiccal literature ppertaining
to secular or
o scientific fu
undamentalism
m and to idenntify any relevvant psychom
metric scales.
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
ntity Dynamicss and Scientificc Fundamentaliism
Page iii
R
Résum
mé
Le projet de Visualisation et de simulatio
on de la dimen
nsion humainne (HTVis) a pour objet dee
m
mettre au pointt des outils in
nformatiques pouvant
p
aiderr les décideurrs canadiens à visualiser ett à
siimuler des asp
pects de la dim
mension hum
maine. Le présent rapport exxamine la doccumentation ssur la
thhéorie de l’ideentité sociale (TIS; Tajfel et
e Turner, 197
79) afin de peermettre la miise au point dd’outils
innformatiques qui serviront dans le cadree des initiativees d’instructioon des Forcess canadienness (FC).
C
Cet examen se fondait sur trrois grandes questions
q
:
ociostructurellles ont-elles sur les stratéggies de gestioon de
1. Quellee influence less croyances so
l’identtité sociale dees groupes à statut supérieu
ur et inférieurr?
2. Quellee influence less croyances so
ociostructurellles ont-elles sur les percepptions intergrroupes?
3. Quellee influence less stratégies dee gestion de l’identité sociaale ont-elles ssur les percepptions
intergrroupes?
D
D’après les documents exam
minés, les croyances relativ
ves aux variabbles sociostruucturelles (c.--à-d.
lees perceptionss en matière de
d stabilité du
u statut, de lég
gitimité, et dee perméabilitéé) peuvent
innfluencer les stratégies
s
de gestion
g
de l’id
dentité (c.-à-d
d. la concurreence sociale, lla mobilité
inndividuelle ou
u la créativité sociale). La recherche
r
ind
dique que, bieen que les grooupes de statuut
suupérieur et infférieur puisseent avoir des motivations
m
différentes,
d
ceeux-ci peuvennt utiliser des
sttratégies semb
blables ou diffférentes. Maiis cela dépend
d souvent du degré d’identtification avecc
l’endogroupe et
e de la percep
ption du conteexte sociostru
ucturel. Les réésultats de l’eexamen de la
doocumentation
n ont permis de
d cerner certaains travaux de
d recherche pportant sur l’iimpact des
crroyances sociiostructurelless sur les perceeptions interg
groupes. Il exiiste très peu dde travaux porrtant
suur l’incidencee des stratégiees de gestion de
d l’identité sur
s les percepptions intergrooupes. Cependdant,
onn trouve des travaux
t
exam
minant d’autress sortes de strratégies, en deehors des troiis stratégies dde base,
ett l’influence que
q celles-ci ont
o sur les perrceptions. Le projet visait également unn autre objectiif :
exxaminer les publications dee psychologiee relative au fondamentalis
f
sme séculier oou scientifiquue et
reecenser tout barème
b
psycho
ométrique perrtinent.
Paage iv
Social Ideentity Dynamiccs and Scientiffic Fundamentaalism
Humanssystems®
Execu
utive Summa
S
ary
Social Id
dentity Dy
ynamics and Scienttific Funda
amentalis
sm
eung, Yvonn
ne DeWit, Emily-Ana Fiilardo, Mich
hael H. Thom
mson, & Ba
arbara D.
Irene Che
£
Adams, Humansyste
H
ems Incorp
porated; DR
RDC Toronto
o No. CR2012-XXX; De
efence
R&D Cana
ada – Toron
nto; April 20
012.
This researcch was carried out by Hum
mansystems® IIncorporated in support off the Human T
Terrain
Visualizatio
on and Simulation (HTViss) project beinng conducted at Defence R
Research and
Developmeent Canada – Toronto
T
(DRD
DC – T). Thee main purposse of the HTV
Vis project is tto develop
computer to
ools that can help
h Canadian
n decision maakers envisionn and simulatte aspects of hhuman
terrain. Thee present repo
ort reviews thee psychologiccal literature ppertaining to Social Identitty Theory
(SIT), to heelp inform thee developmen
nt of computerr tools for Caanadian Forcees (CF) traininng
initiatives.
t people’s beliefs about themselves aare partly baseed on the social groups thaat they
SIT posits that
belong to an
nd identify with,
w
and that being
b
part of a group invollves beliefs annd knowledge about
the group, evaluations
e
ab
bout the group, and behaviiours that theyy should adheere to as a meember of
the group. A key assump
ption of SIT is that people are motivatedd to see their social groupss
positively and
a distinctiveely (positive distinctivenes
d
ss), and whenn people’s belliefs about theeir group
are threaten
ned, they can use various strategies to m
manage their cconcerns (i.e.,, social comppetition,
social creattivity, or indiv
vidual mobilitty). The strateegies that peoople select deppend on socioostructural
variables (i.e., the stabiliity and legitim
macy of the soocial differenntial, and the ppermeability oof the
boundaries between grou
ups) that are related
r
to theiir beliefs abouut the social pposition of their group.
Understand
ding how peop
ple function in an intergrouup context caan aid in the ddevelopment oof a social
simulation system of soccial identity dynamics
d
for C
CF training.
ure review on SIT was guid
ded by three pprimary questtions:
The literatu
1. How do sociostrructural belieffs influence ssocial identityy managemennt strategies foor highand
d low status groups?
g
2. How do sociostrructural belieffs influence inntergroup perrceptions?
3. How do social id
dentity manag
gement strateegies influencce intergroup pperceptions?
The results of the literatu
ure review ind
dicated that thhe impact of sociostructural beliefs on ssocial
identity maanagement strategies was mediated
m
by hhow closely iddentified an inndividual wass with
their group. Key finding
gs with respecct to the stabillity and legitim
macy of sociaal structures iindicated
that among those who arre highly iden
ntified with thheir group, ann unstable soccial structure iis
experienced
d as threatenin
ng and stressfful for membbers of a high status group and challengiing by
members off low status groups.
g
Underr unstable or iillegitimate soocial structurees, highly ideentified
group mem
mbers are likelly to use sociaal competitionn strategies (ee.g., bolsterinng) in order too either
maintain th
heir status (in the case of hiigh status grooups) or challeenge the statuus (in the casee of low
status group
ps). When staatus is deemed
d to be stable or legitimatee, the predom
minant manageement
strategy is likely
l
to be so
ocial creativitty (e.g., selecttive devaluingg) among higghly identifiedd members
of both high
h and low staatus groups. When
W
the bounndaries betweeen groups are seen to be ppermeable,
highly iden
ntified membeers of low stattus groups aree likely to usee social comppetition (e.g., collective
action) strategies to man
nage social ideentity. Highlyy identified m
members of hiigh status grouups are
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page v
likkely to use mobility
m
strateg
gies (i.e., recaategorization)) to maintain their distinctiiveness. Reseearch
allso indicates that
t the impacct of the socio
ostructural vaariables are addditive. The ppredominant sstrategy
ussed by those who
w are weak
kly identified with their low
w status groupp, irrespectivve of sociostruuctural
vaariables, is individual mob
bility (e.g., ou
utgroup favourritism, ingrouup derogationn) as they are likely
too see changing
g their group in order to im
mprove their social
s
status aas the most effficient strateggy.
W
With respect to
o the influencce of sociostru
uctural beliefss on intergrouup perceptionns, the researcch
inndicates that highly
h
identifi
fied group members are lik
kely to displayy outgroup deerogation and
inngroup favourritism in respo
onse to unstab
ble social stru
uctures. Whenn social structture is stable,, these
inntergroup percceptions are likely to only be evident when
w
using imp
mplicit measurres. When a soocial
sttructure is bellieved to be leegitimate, hig
gh status group
p members arre likely to evvaluate outgrooups
neegatively and
d feel less guillt or threat about the sociall structure. Thhe less legitim
mate they findd the
soocial structuree, the more lik
kely they are to perceive discrimination
d
n from outgrooup members.
Inntergroup relaations are only
y impacted by
y the permeab
bility of the ggroup boundarries in combinnation
w
with the impacct of other socciostructural variables.
v
Forr example, perrmeable grouup boundariess are
asssociated with
h less ingroup
p identificatio
on and more outgroup
o
idenntification amoong low statuus
grroups when th
he status struccture is perceived to be staable and legitiimate.
W
With respect to
o the impact of
o social identtity managem
ment strategiess on intergrouup perceptionns, the
reesearch indicaated that the use
u of mobilitty strategies such as superoordinate recattegorization reeduced
neegative outgro
oup perceptio
ons, especially
y by lower staatus groups. O
On the other hhand, social
coompetition, esspecially in th
he face of lim
mited resourcees was likely tto lead to neggative intergrooup
peerceptions succh as feelingss of threat, biaas against the outgroup, annd downward social compaarisons.
O
Overall, the literature review
w shows that there are com
mplex relationns among the variables in tthe
soocial identity model and th
he current repo
ort aims to clarify these re lations to suppport the HTV
Vis
prroject.
Paage vi
Humanssystems®
Somm
maire
Social Id
dentity Dy
ynamics and Scienttific Funda
amentalis
sm
eung, Yvonn
ne DeWitt, Emily-Ana
E
F
Filardo, Mic
chael H. Tho
omson, & Barbara
Irene Che
£
D. Adams
s, Humansy
ystems Inco
orporated; DRDC Toro
onto No. CR
R2012-XXX; Defence
R&D Cana
ada – Toron
nto; Avril 20
012.
umansystems® Incorporateed à l’appui duu projet de
Cette recheerche a été efffectuée par Hu
Visualisatio
on et de simullation de la diimension hum
maine (HTViss) mené actueellement par R
Recherche
et développ
pement pour la défense Can
nada – Toronnto (RDDC – T). Le projet HTVis a pouur principal
objet de meettre au point des outils infformatiques ppouvant aider les décideurss canadiens à visualiser
et à simulerr des aspects de
d la dimensiion humaine. Le présent raapport examinne les publicaations de
psychologiee portant sur la
l théorie de l’identité
l
sociiale (TIS), afi
fin de guider lla mise au poiint des
outils inform
matiques desttinés aux initiiatives d’instrruction des Foorces canadieennes (FC).
D’après la TIS,
T l’opinion
n que se font les gens de leeur propre perrsonne se fonnde en partie ssur les
groupes socciaux auxquells ils appartieennent et auxqquels ils s’ideentifient. La T
TIS pose égaleement en
principe qu
ue pour faire partie
p
d’un gro
oupe, on doitt avoir des crooyances et dess connaissancces
concernant ce groupe, faaire l’évaluatiion du groupee, et adopter lees comportem
ments qui s’im
mposent en
tant que meembre du grou
upe. Une des hypothèses cclés de la TIS est que les geens sont motiivés à voir
leurs group
pes sociaux dee façon positiv
ve et distinctiive (caractèree distinctif positif) et que, llorsque
leurs croyan
nces à l’égard
d de leur grou
upe sont menaacées, ils peuvvent avoir reccours à diversses
stratégies pour
p
gérer leurrs inquiétudess (c.-à-d. con currence sociiale, créativitéé sociale ou m
mobilité
individuellee). Les stratég
gies choisies par
p les gens ssont fonction des variabless sociostructurrelles (c.à-d. la stabiilité et la légittimité de l’écart social et laa perméabilitté des limites qui séparent les
groupes) liéées à leurs cro
oyances à l’ég
gard de la possition sociale de leur grouppe. La comprééhension
du fonction
nnement des gens
g
dans un contexte
c
interrgroupes peutt aider à l’élabboration d’unn système
de simulatio
on sociale de la dynamique de l’identitéé sociale aux fins de l’instrruction des m
membres
des FC.
d ouvrages sur la TIS se fondait sur trrois grandes qquestions :
L’examen des
1. Qu
uelle influencee les croyancees sociostructturelles ont-ellles sur les strratégies de geestion de
l’id
dentité socialee des groupes à statut supéérieur et infériieur?
2. Qu
uelle influencee les croyancees sociostructturelles ont-ellles sur les peerceptions inteergroupes?
3. Qu
uelle influencee les stratégies de gestion dde l’identité ssociale ont-ellles sur les perrceptions
inteergroupes?
Les résultatts de l’examen de la docum
mentation dém
montrent que l’incidence ddes croyances
sociostructu
urelles sur less stratégies dee gestion de l’’identité sociaale est influenncée par le deegré
auquel une personne s’id
dentifie à son groupe. Les résultats clés relatifs à la sstabilité et à laa
légitimité des
d structures sociales dém
montrent que, ppour les persoonnes qui s’iddentifient forttement à
leur groupee, une structurre sociale insttable peut connstituer une m
menace et êtree source de strress
(membres de
d groupes dee statut supériieur) et paraîtrre difficile (m
membres des ggroupes de staatut
inférieur). Lorsque
L
la strructure sociale est instable ou illégitimee, il y a de forrtes chances qque les
personnes qui
q s’identifieent fortement à leur groupee aient recourrs à des stratéggies de concuurrence
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page vii
soociale (p. ex. le renforcemeent) dans le but soit de maiintenir leur sttatut (dans le cas des grouppes à
sttatut supérieur), soit de con
ntester le statu
ut (dans le cass des groupess à statut inférrieur). Quandd le
sttatut est jugé stable
s
ou légiitime, il est po
ossible que laa stratégie de ggestion prédoominante soit la
crréativité sociaale (p. ex. la dépréciation
d
sélective)
s
chezz les personnnes qui s’identtifient fortem
ment à
leeur groupe, qu
ue le statut soit supérieur ou
o inférieur. Si
S les limites sséparant les ggroupes sont
coonsidérées co
omme étant peerméables, alo
ors les person
nnes qui s’ideentifient fortem
ment à leur grroupe
dee statut inférieur vont prob
bablement avo
oir recours au
ux stratégies dde concurrencce sociale (p. ex.
l’action collecttive) pour gérrer l’identité sociale.
s
Les membres
m
qui ss’identifient ffortement à dees
grroupes à statu
ut supérieur vont probablem
ment employeer des stratégiies de mobilitté (c.-à-d. la
reecatégorisatio
on) pour préseerver leur caraactère distincttif. La rechercche indique aaussi que les
inncidences des variables socciostructurellees s’additionn
nent. La stratéégie prédominnante utilisée par
ceeux qui s’iden
ntifient peu à leur groupe à statut inférieeur, quelles qu
que soient les variables
soociostructurellles, est la mo
obilité individ
duelle (p. ex. le
l favoritismee exogroupe, lle dénigremennt
enndogroupe), car
c il y a de fo
ortes chances que ces perso
onnes jugent que la meilleure stratégie ppour
am
méliorer leur statut social sera
s de chang
ger de groupe..
En ce qui a traiit à l’influencce qu’ont les croyances
c
socciostructurellees sur les percceptions
inntergroupes, la recherche in
ndique que lees personnes qui
q s’identifieent beaucoup à leur groupee
risquent fort dee dénigrer les autres group
pes et de faire du favoritism
me à l’intérieuur de leur grouupe en
rééaction à l’insstabilité des sttructures sociiales. Quand la
l structure soociale est stabble, ces percepptions
inntergroupes riisquent de n’aapparaître quee lorsque des mesures impllicites sont apppliquées. Quuand ils
crroient en la léégitimité de laa structure socciale, les mem
mbres des grooupes à statut supérieur ontt de
foortes chances d’évaluer less autres group
pes négativem
ment et de resssentir moins dde culpabilité à
l’égard de la sttructure sociaale ou de se seentir moins menacés
m
dans lle cadre de ceelle-ci. Moinss les
geens croient en
n la légitimitéé de la structu
ure sociale, plu
us ils risquentt de percevoirr de la
diiscrimination de la part dess membres dees autres grou
upes. Les relattions intergrooupes ne sont
afffectées que par
p la perméab
bilité des limiites du groupee combinée à l’incidence dd’autres variaables
soociostructurellles. Par exem
mple, les limites perméables d’un groupee sont associéées à une moiindre
iddentification à l’endogroup
pe et à une plu
us grande iden
ntification à ll’exogroupe cchez les grouppes à
sttatut inférieurr quand la stru
ucture du statu
ut est jugée sttable et légitim
me.
En ce qui a traiit à l’incidencce des stratégies de gestion
n de l’identitéé sociale sur lees perceptionns
inntergroupes, la recherche démontre
d
que le recours aux stratégies dde mobilité, coomme la
reecatégorisatio
on surordonnéée, réduit les perceptions
p
néégatives de l’’exogroupe, ssurtout chez lees
grroupes à statu
ut inférieur. D’autre
D
part, laa concurrencee sociale, partticulièrement lorsque les
reessources sont limitées, risque fort d’enttraîner des peerceptions néggatives interggroupes, notam
mment
lee sentiment d’’être menacé, de faire l’objjet de préjugéés de la part dde l’exogroupe, et des
coomparaisons sociales
s
desceendantes.
D
Dans l’ensemb
ble, l’examen des publications démontree l’existence dde relations ccomplexes enttre les
vaariables du modèle
m
de l’ideentité sociale,, et le présentt rapport vise à clarifier cess relations à ll’appui
duu projet HTV
Vis.
Paage viii
Humanssystems®
Table
e of Co
ontents
s
ABSTRACT.................................................................. ..................... ..........................................................III
RÉSUMÉ..................................................................... ..................... ..........................................................IV
EXECUTIVESSUMMARY............................................... ..................... ..........................................................IV
SOMMAIRE............................................................... ..................... .........................................................VII
TABLEOFCO
ONTENTS................................................. ..................... ..........................................................IX
LISTOFFIGU
URES........................................................ ..................... ..........................................................XI
LISTOFTABLES.......................................................... ..................... .........................................................XII
1. PROJECTOVERVIEW........................................... ..................... ...........................................................1
1.1
1.2
1.3
BACKGROUNDANDDSCOPE................................... ......................................................................................1
WORKITEMS.................................................... ......................................................................................1
DELIVERABLES................................................... ......................................................................................1
2. METHO
ODANDRESULT
TS....................................... ..................... ...........................................................3
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
MINDMAPANDKEYWORDS
E
.................................. ......................................................................................3
DATABASES....................................................... ......................................................................................4
SELECTIONOFARTTICLES....................................... ......................................................................................4
STRUCTUREOFTHE
T
EREPORT................................. ...................................................................... ................4
3. SOCIALIDENTITYAND
DSOCIALIDENTITYMANAGEEMENT.....................................................................5
3.1
DEFINITIONSANDRELEVANTTHEORRETICALFRAMEW ORKS..............................................................................5
4. HOWDO
OSOCIOSTRUC
CTURALBELIEFFSOFSTABILITTY,LEGITIMAC
CY,ANDPERM
MEABILITYINFLLUENCE
SOCIALIDEN
NTITYMANAGEMENTSTRAT
TEGIESFORHIG
GHANDLOWSSTATUSGROU
UPS?(4.7.3)..................11
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
STABILITYAND
T
IDENTITYMANAGEM
MENTSTRATEGIES ..................................................................... ..............11
LEGITIMACYAND
E
IDENTITY
D
MANAGEMENTSTRATEGI ES................................................................................28
PERMEABILITYANDDIDENTITYMANAAGEMENTSTRATEEGIES.............................................................................40
OTHERRESEARCHEXAMININGSOCIOSTRUCTURALBEELIEFSANDIDENTTITYMANAGEMEN
NTSTRATEGIES.................50
SUMMARY........................................................ ....................................................................................55
5. HOWDO
OSOCIOSTRUC
CTURALBELIEFFSͲSTABILITYY,LEGITIMACY,,ANDPERMEA
ABILITYͲINFLU
UENCE
INTERGROU
UPPERCEPTION
NS?(4.7.4).......................... ..................... ..........................................................57
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
STABILITYAND
T
INTERGROUPPERCEPPTIONS............. ....................................................................................57
LEGITIMACYAND
E
INTERGROUP
N
PERCCEPTIONS.......... ....................................................................................60
PERMEABILITYANDDINTERGROUPPERCEPTIONS
E
....... ....................................................................................69
OTHERRESEARCHEXAMININGSOCIOSTRUCTURALBEELIEFSANDINTERGGROUPPERCEPTIONS..............................70
SUMMARY........................................................ ....................................................................................79
6. HOWDO
OSOCIALIDEN
NTITYMANAGEMENTSTRATTEGIESINFLUENCEINTERGRO
OUPPERCEPTIIONS?
(4.7.5)........................................................................ ..................... ..........................................................81
6.1
SUMMARY........................................................ ....................................................................................96
7. FEEDBA
ACKLOOP–HO
OWDOIDENTITYMANAGEM
MENTSTRATEG
GIESIMPACTID
DENTITYANDG
GROUP
STATUSRELA
ATIONS(SOCIO
OSTRUCTURALLBELIEFS)?(4..7.6)........................................................................97
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page ix
8.. SYNOPSIS(LESSTHAN3,0
000WORDS–5PAGES)OFM
METHODOLOG
GIESUSEDTOM
MANIPULATEA
AND
M
MEASURESOCIO
OCULTURALBELIEFSANDID
DENTITYMANA
AGEMENTSTRA
ATEGIES......................................99
8.1
8.2
8.3
MEASSURESOFSOCIOSTTRUCTURALVARIAABLES....................................... ........................................................99
MANIPULATIONSOFTH
HESOCIOSTRUCTU
URALVARIABLES.......................... ......................................................101
MEASSURESOFSOCIALIDENTITYMANAG
GEMENTSTRATEGIES.................. ......................................................104
9.. SCIENTIFICSTATUSOFTH
HECONCEPTO
OFSECULARAN
NDSCIENTIFIC FUNDAMENTA
ALISM..................113
SECULLARANDSCIENTIFFICFUNDAMENTAALISM....................................... ......................................................113
9.1
9.1.1 Fu
undamentalism
m............................................................................................ ..............................113
9.1.2 Seecularfundameentalism................................................................................ ..............................114
9.1.3 Scientificfundam
mentalism............................................................................. ..............................114
IMPACCTOFNONͲRELIGIIOUSBELIEFSYSTEEMSONHEALTH,W
WELLͲBEINGANDCOGNITION......................................115
9.2
9.3
SCALEESPERTAININGTOSECULARANDSCCIENTIFICFUNDAM
MENTALISM........ ......................................................116
9.3.1 Scientism....................................................................................................... ..............................116
9.3.2 EvvolutionandCrreationism............................................................................ ..............................117
9.3.3 ReelatingScienceandReligion........................................................................ ..............................118
9.3.4 StrrengthofBelieefs......................................................................................... ..............................119
9.3.5 AtttitudetowardScience................................................................................ ..............................119
9.3.6 FreeeWillandDeeterminism............................................................................ ..............................120
9.4
SUMM
MARYOFFINDINGS................................................................... ......................................................121
REEFERENCES........................................................................................... ..................... ............................123
ANNEXA–SCIEENTIFICFUNDA
AMENTALISMSSCALE................................. ..................... ............................131
ANNEXB–CREA
ATIONISMSCA
ALEVERSIONS.......................................... ..................... ............................133
ANNEXC–STREENGTHOFBELLIEFSMEASUREES....................................... ..................... ............................135
COMMITMENTTTOBELIEFS(CTB;;MAXWELLͲSMITTH&ESSES,2012
2)................... ......................................................135
WORLDHEALTH
HORGANIZATIONQUALITYOFLIFE–SPIRITUAL,RELIGIOUS,ANDPERRSONALBELIEFS((WHOQOLͲSRP
PB).136
ANNEXD–SCALESMEASURIN
NGATTITUDESSTOWARDSCIENCE............ ..................... ............................138
MENIS,1989)................................................... ......................................................138
ATTITUDETOWAARDSSCIENCE(M
ANNEXE–FADͲͲPLUS(PAULHUS&CAREY,2
2011).................................. ..................... ............................139
Paage x
Humanssystems®
List of
o Figures
FIGURE1.THEEROLEOFSOCIOSTTRUCTURALBELIEFSINIDENTIFICATTIONANDIDENTITTYMANAGEMENTTSTRATEGIES(TAJJFEL&
TURNERR,1986)......................................................... ......................................................................................7
FIGURE2.INTEERGROUPHELPING
GRELATIONSASA
AFFECTEDBYPERCCEIVEDLEGITIMAC
CYANDSTABILITYOFPOWERRELATTIONS
BETWEENGROUPS(NADLLER,2002;CITED
DINNADLERAND HALABI,2006,PP.99)...................................... ..............12
FIGURE3. VC,,CO,ANDTPRAASAFUNCTIONOFGROUPSTATUSAANDSTATUSSTABBILITY.(SCHEEPERS,2009,P.231)).............18
FIGURE4. RELLATIONSHIPSBETW
WEENDIFFERENTFFUNCTIONSANDFFORMSOFINGROU
RTIN
UPBIAS,SELFͲESTTEEM,ANDEFFOR
EXPERIM
MENT3.STANDAR
RDIZEDCOEFFICIEN
NTSAREEXPRESSEEDALONGTHELIN
NES(LOWSTATUSS/HIGHSTATUS);TTHOSEIN
BOLDAR
RESIGNIFICANTATTP<.05.ID=IDEENTITYͲEXPRESSIV
VEFUNCTION;INSST=INSTRUMENTTALFUNCTION;PCSE=
PRIVATEESUBSCALEOFCOLLECTIVE
O
SELFͲEESTEEMSCALE;M
MIP=MAXIMUMINGROUPPROFITT;MJP=MAXIMU
UMJOINT
PROFIT;MD=MAXIMUM
MDIFFERENTIATIO
ON.(SCHEEPERSETTAL.,2006,P.9
954)......................................................25
FIGURE5.THEESTATUSVALUEASYMMETRYSHOW
WNWITHGROUPBBASEDONSCHOO
OLAFFILIATIONINSTUDY1.(SCHMADERETAL.,
2001,PP.786)........................................................... ....................................................................................29
FIGURE6.STATUSILLEGITIMACYYMODERATESTHESTATUSVALUEAASYMMETRYINSTTUDY3.(SCHMADDERETAL.,P.792)..........30
FIGURE7.POSSITIVEAFFECTASAAFUNCTIONOFLO
OWEFFORTATTRI BUTIONSANDEXPPERIMENTALLEGIITIMACY.(COSTARELLI,2012,
P.54)....................................................................... ...................................................................... ..............38
KESSLERANDMU MMENDEY,20022,P.76)................................................50
FIGURE8.INTEEGRATEDSITͲANDDͲRDTMODEL(K
FIGURE9.INTEERACTIONBETWEENIDENTIFICATIO
ON×EXPERIMENTTALCONDITION.D EPENDENTVARIA
ABLE:IMPLICITOU
UTGROUP
EVALUAT
TION.(VEZZALIETTAL.,2012,P.37)................... ...................................................................... ..............59
FIGURE10.APATHͲANALYTICM
MODEL,WITHPRO
OTOTYPICALITYAS
SEXOGENOUSVAR
RIABLEANDLEGITIMACY,THREAT,G
GUILT,AND
ROUPATTITUDESA
ASENDOGENOUSVARIABLES.(FRO
OMWEBER,MUM
MMENDEY,ANDWALDZUS,2002, P.456)..62
INTERGR
FIGURE11.ATTRIBUTIONSTOD
T
DISCRIMINATIONA
AMONGHIGHSTA
ATUS(EUROPEANAMERICAN)ANDLOWSTATUS(LA
ATINO
AMERICAN)GROUPMEMBERSASAFUNCTTIONOFREJECTIONNCONTEXTANDBBELIEFININDIVIDU
UALMOBILITY(STTUDY2).
(MAJORRETAL.,2002,P.275)..................................... ....................................................................................67
FIGURE12.MINORITYANDMAJJORITYGROUP’SBBIASINGENERALRREWARDALLOCATTIONSINEXPERIM
MENT2.(GONZA
ALEZ&
BROWN,2006,P.763).............................................. ....................................................................................84
FIGURE13.IDENTIFICATION×IDENTITYTHREATINTERACTIONPREEDICTINGPERCEPTTIONOFINGROUPPVARIABILITY(PAAGLIAROET
AL.,201
12,P.44)....................................................... ....................................................................................90
FIGURE14.IDENTIFICATION×IDENTITYTHREATINTERACTIONPREEDICTINGAMBIVAALENCETOWARDTTHEINGROUP(PAAGLIAROET
12,P.44)....................................................... ....................................................................................91
AL.,201
FIGURE15.SUPPRESSORMODE
U
ELTESTINGRELATIONSHIPSBETWEEENTHEPERCEIVED
DGROUPDEVALUA
ATIONMANIPULA
ATION,GROUP
IDENTIFICATION,INTERGR
ROUPDIFFERENTIA
ATION,ANDINTRA
AGROUPRESPECT .(JETTENETAL.,2005,P.212)...............93
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page xi
L
List of Tables
s
TAABLE1.KEYWORD
DS........................................................................................ ..........................................................3
TAABLE2.DATABASSES........................................................................................ ..........................................................4
TAABLE3.THE3×2TAXONOMYOFIIDENTITYMANAGEMENTSTRATEGIEESFOLLOWINGNEEGATIVESOCIALIDDENTITY(BLANZEETAL.,
1998,P722
2)........................................................................................ ..........................................................8
TAABLE4.SUMMARRYOFIDENTITYMAANAGEMENTSTRAATEGIESINRESPONSETOSOCIOSTRRUCTURALSTABILIITY............................27
TAABLE5.SUMMARRYOFIDENTITYMAANAGEMENTSTRAATEGIESINRESPONSETOSOCIOSTRRUCTURALLEGITIM
MACY.........................39
TAABLE6.SUMMARRYOFIDENTITYMAANAGEMENTSTRAATEGIESINRESPONSETOSOCIOSTRRUCTURALPERMEAABILITY......................49
TAABLE7.CORRELATTIONSBETWEENTTRAITCOMPONEN
NTSOFTHESITͲAN
NDͲRDTMODEL. (KESSLERANDM UMMENDEY,20
002,P.
83)........................................................................................................ ........................................................52
TAABLE8.SUMMARRYOFRESEARCHCOMBININGALLTH
HREESOCIOSTRUC
CTURALDIMENSIO
ONSINRELATIONTTOIDENTITY
MANAGEMEN
NTSTRATEGIES........................................................................ ........................................................55
TAABLE9.SUMMARRYOFINTERGROUPPERCEPTIONSIN
NRESPONSETOSOCIOSTRUCTURALLSTABILITY.........................................60
TAABLE10.SUMMAARYOFINTERGROUPPERCEPTIONSINRESPONSETOSOCIOSTRUCTURAALLEGITIMACY...................................69
TAABLE11.SUMMAARYOFRESEARCHCOMBININGALLTTHREESOCIOSTRU
UCTURALDIMENSIIONSINRELATION
NTOINTERGROUP
P
PERCEPTIONSS.......................................................................................... ........................................................78
TAABLE13.SUMMAARYOFRESEARCHASSESSINGTHERELATIONSHIPBETWEENSOCIALIDDENTITYMANAGEEMENTSTRATEGIEESAND
INTERGROUPPPERCEPTIONS........................................................................ ........................................................95
TAABLE14:SUBSCAALEDESCRIPTIONSS,SAMPLEITEMS,ANDRELIABILITYYFORPOLINGANDDEVAN’S(2004))MEASURE...............118
Paage xii
Humanssystems®
1. Project Overv
view
1.1
Ba
ackground
d and Sco
ope
The Canadiian Forces need to understand the expedditionary enviironment in oorder to effecttively
communicaate their messages and win
n the hearts annd minds of addversary popuulations. Signnificant
scientific an
nd technologiical breakthro
oughs in the fi
fields of sociaal psychologyy, social influeence, and
cultural antthropology are needed to achieve
a
a preddictive model of social inflluence that alllows
decision maakers to plan, execute, and
d measure effeectiveness of various typess of non-kinettic
operations. The goals off the HTVis prroject are to iidentify the m
most well deveeloped and w
well tested
social scien
nce models off the dynamics of the formaation and maiintenance of ppeople’s sharred social
beliefs and to build comp
puter models that can be uused by Canaddian decision makers to beetter
understand complex socio-cultural beeliefs of targett populationss in expeditionnary environm
ments. To
identify succh models, wo
ork is needed along the folllowing two llines of researrch: (1) underrstanding
the dynamics of social id
dentity beliefs
fs and (2) the sscientific stattus of the conncept of
scientific/seecular fundam
mentalism.
1.2
Wo
ork Items
The followiing work item
ms were underrtaken:
x Parrticipated in a start-up meeeting with the scientific autthority.
x
Wo
orked with thee scientific au
uthority to deffine the scopee of the invesstigation.
x
Con
nducted a tho
orough search
h of the psychhological literaature for research pertaininng to the
key
y questions
x
Sellected scholarrly publication
ns (i.e., journnal articles).
x
Rev
viewed literatture pertainin
ng to the key qquestions andd integrated seelected publiccations
into
o a literature review.
r
1.3
De
eliverables
s
A comprehensive review
w of the literatture related too social identtity theory andd the conceptt of
scientific fu
undamentalism
m. The reportt will include :
x A summ
mary of databaases, methodss and keyworrds employed to conduct thhe
literaturre review;
x
Summarry of key theo
ories and conccepts;
x
Review of the literatu
ure on social identity theorry and scientiific fundamenntalism
and a su
ummary of thee findings.
x
Draaft of the literrature review..
x
Fin
nal literature review
r
to be submitted.
s
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 1
TH
HIS PAGE IN
NTENTIONALLY LEFT B
BLANK.
Paage 2
Humanssystems®
2. Method
M
and Results
R
s
2.1
Miindmap an
nd Keywo
ords
To begin, a Mindmap waas generated to
t provide ann illustration oof the major cconstructs andd other
research areeas relevant to
o social identtity, pertaininng specificallyy to the role oof sociostructuural beliefs
in identity management
m
strategies and
d intergroup pperceptions. T
This process iinvolved a
brainstormiing session with
w members of the HSI£ rresearch team
m, and relied oon their cumuulative
knowledge and experien
nce with the pertinent psychhological dom
mains. From tthe Mindmapp, a set of
keywords was
w developed
d to focus thee literature seaarch. The team
m establishedd a number off core
concepts an
nd primary keeywords, as sh
hown in Tabl e 1.
Table 1. K
Keywords
Co
ore Concept
Primary Keyw
words
Meeaning
Sysstems
Consistent/ cooherent meaningg syste*, worldview, belief system
m, system
justification, meaning
m
maintennance, meaning making, meaninng framework,
global meaninng, situational meeaning, value syystem, search foor meaning
Meeasurement
(related to
meeaning
sysstems)
Tolerance for ambiguity, needd for structure, need for cognitionn, need for
control, personal uncertainty, need for clarity, personal inconssistency, need foor
meaning
Meeasures
scale, questionnaire, inventory
ry, test, indices, iindicators
Social identity
identi*, social identi*, relationaal identi*, social role*, collective identi*, relationaal
sel*, intergrouup contact theoryy, intergroup relaations, sociostructural beliefs,
identity managgement, identity bolstering, idenntity change, inteergroup status,
intergroup perrceptions, identitty formation, ideentity maintenancce, shared sociaal
belief, self-cattegorization, grooup membership, self-enhancem
ment, individual
mobility, sociaal creativity, soci al competition, ssocial comparisoon, group status,
group structurre, group identificcation, intergrouup inequality, inteergroup conflict,
sociocultural beliefs,
b
group leggitimacy, group stability, group ppermeability,
group boundaaries, group dynaamics, group meembership, low sstatus group, higgh
status group, lower/ higher staatus groups
Sciientific/
Secular
Fundamentalism
Scientific belieefs/orientation, ssecular beliefs/orrientation, humaanistic
beliefs/orientaation, fundamenttalis*, dogmatic, dogmatism, scieentism
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 3
2.2
Databases
A
As shown in Table
T
2, the fo
ollowing datab
bases were the most relevaant for searching the scienttific
litterature relev
vant to social identity
i
theorry (i.e., sociosstructural beliiefs, identity m
management
sttrategies, and intergroup peerceptions) an
nd scientific fundamentalis
f
sm.
Ta
able 2. Data
abases
D
Database
Deescription
P
PsycINFO
The PsycINFO dattabase is a collection of electronically stored bib liographic refereences, often withh
maries, to psychoological literaturee from the 1800ss to the present. The available litterature
absstracts or summ
inccludes material published
p
in 50 countries,
c
but is all
a presented in English. Books and chapters puublished
woorldwide are alsoo covered in the database, as weell as technical reeports and disseertations from thhe last
sevveral decades.
JJSTOR
JSTOR is a not–for–profit service that
t allows individuals to accesss a wide range oof content in a truusted
diggital archive of ovver one thousannd academic jourrnals and other sscholarly contennt. JSTOR includdes a
varriety of topics inccluding economiics, history, polittical science, socciology, and psyychology, as well as
othher key fields in the
t humanities and
a social servicces.
G
Google
S
Scholar
A specialty
s
search engine maintainned by Google which
w
contains a cademic articless and presentatioons.
Maany disciplines are represented, and sources incclude articles, boooks, and abstraacts from academ
mic
publishers, professsional societies, online repositories, universities,, and other web sites. Google sccholar
atteempts to rank doocuments basedd on the full text of each documeent, where it wass published, whoo it was
wriitten by, how reccently it was cited, and how oftenn it was cited in other scholarly lliterature
2.3
Selec
ction of Articles
A
The databases were systemaatically search
hed using the core conceptts specified abbove. We alsoo
iddentified articcles cited in th
he reference liists of the artiicles obtainedd for the revieew on the bassis of
thheir potential relevance to the
t key questions. The reseearch team reeviewed the ar
articles generaated
frrom the search
hes and scann
ned each for relevance.
r
On
nce a number of potentiallyy suitable articles
w
were identified
d (approximattely 100), we reviewed thee abstracts andd selected thoose that addreessed
thhe core concep
pts on social identity and scientific
s
fund
damentalism and gave prioority to the arrticles
thhat were mostt recently pub
blished (since 2000).
2.4
Struc
cture of th
he Report
The report is broken
b
down into
i
two majo
or parts. The first
f
part conssists of those articles that w
were
foound relating to understand
ding the dynaamics of sociaal identity beliiefs. This parrt of the reporrt is
fuurther divided
d into four secctions addresssing each of th
he key questiions. These caan be found inn
chhapters 4, 5, 6,
6 and 7. The second part consists
c
of tho
ose articles reelating to the sscientific stattus of
thhe concept of scientific fun
ndamentalism
m. A summary
y is provided rregarding the status of the
cooncept. This summary
s
can be found in chapter
c
9.
Paage 4
Humanssystems®
3. Social Identity
y and S
Social Identiity
Manage
M
ement
3.1
De
efinitions and Relev
vant Theo
oretical Fra
ameworks
s
Human bein
ngs are essentially social and,
a as a resullt, belong to a number of ssocial categorries or
groups. Succh belonging is in some caases voluntaryy (e.g., husbannd, mayor, Jeewish, Canadiian) and in
other cases involuntary (e.g.,
(
female, black, “babyy boomer”). E
Either way, social identificaation
occurs wheen individualss associate witth a valued grroup, accept aand integrate the values annd norms
of the group
p, and believee that membership is an im
mportant elem
ment of their seelf-definitionn. Social
identity is a product of our
o relationshiip to a group and the adherrence to its paarticularities. It differs
from one’s personal iden
ntity, which can
c be definedd as our uniquue traits or chharacteristics ((e.g.,
neuroticism
m, extraversion
n) that disting
guishes us wiithin the groupp. Social idenntities, rather,, emerge
when the an
nswer to the question
q
‘Who am I?’ derivves from an aassociation with internalizeed group
membership
p and a subseequent manifeestation of thee group’s valuues and norm
ms (Haslam, Elllemers,
Reicher, Reeynolds, and Schmitt,
S
2010
0). The emph asis here is beelonging to annd integration with
others and collective
c
belliefs, attitudess and actions to form our sself-concept.
Central to social
s
identity
y is its functio
onal value or ““membershipp has its privilleges”. For exxample,
Brewer (19
999) argues th
hat social iden
ntity satisfies our longing ffor social incllusion. She staates that
the “expecttations of cooperation and security prom
mote positive attraction tow
ward other inggroup
members an
nd motivate adherence
a
to ingroup
i
norm
ms of appearannce and behavvior that assurre that one
will be reco
ognized as a good
g
or legitim
mate ingroupp member” (p.. 433). As succh, members rreceive
privileges or
o entitlementts that others do not. Peoplle can predictt their social eenvironment m
more
effectively and also locaate themselvess in relation too others withhin the social sspace (Kundaa, 1999).
Social identity theorists Tajfel and Tu
urner (1986) aalso emphasizze the functioonal value of bbelonging
to social groups. They hold that identtification withh valued sociaal groups enhhances an indiividual’s
social stand
ding, self-esteeem, and positive identity. A key assum
mption of sociaal identity theeory
(SIT)1, therrefore, is that people are geenerally motivvated to mainntain a positivve self-conceppt, which
can be acco
omplished by invoking a po
ositive sociall identity.
However, forming
f
and maintaining
m
a positive soci al identity is often dependdent on ingrouup bias,
i.e., favouraable comparissons showing
g the positive ddistinctivenesss of one’s inggroup relativee to the
outgroup on
n some relevaant dimension
n or characterristics (Hewsttone, Rubin & Willis, 20022).
According to Brewer (19
999, p. 433-4), “[s]ymbolss and behaviors that differeentiate the inggroup from
local outgro
oups become particularly important…to
i
o reduce the rrisk that ingrooup benefits w
will be
inadvertenttly extended to outgroup members,
m
and to ensure thaat ingroup mem
mbers will recognize
one’s own entitlement
e
to
o receive beneefits. Assimillation within aand differentiiation between groups
is thus mutu
ually reinforccing, along wiith ethnocentrric preferencee for ingroup interactions aand
institutions.” Through so
ocial compariison, group m
members may perceive them
mselves to havve an
Subsequent refinements em
mphasized self-caategorization theeory (SCT; e.g. TTurner, Hogg, O
Oakes, Reicher aand
Wetherell, 19887) in order to emphasize the intragroup processses as well as thhe intergroup prrocesses relevannt to identity.
These two theeories, social ideentity theory (Tajjfel and Turner, 1986) and self-ccategorization theory have sincee been
integrated intoo the social identity approach (e.g., Haslam, 20001).
1
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 5
addvantaged staatus on specifi
fic dimensionss in relation to
o an outside ggroup. In this way, one’s ggroup
iddentity gains a particular sttatus (e.g., hig
gh status vs. low
l status).
R
Research has shown
s
that ing
group biases can
c occur in response
r
to booth real distinnctions (e.g., one is
m
more likely to favour memb
bers of one’s social
s
groups) as well as inn response to arbitrary
diistinctions. Fo
or example, seminal sociall psychological research byy Tajfel (19788) showed thaat even
diividing group
ps on the basiss of an arbitraary distinction
n (e.g., eye coolour – minim
mal group paraadigm)
caan give rise to
o ingroup vs. outgroup disttinctions. Deffinitions of onneself versus others are inttended
too be “relationaal and compaarative” (Tajfeel, 1978), as they
t
are most meaningful iin comparisonn to
otther categoriees (e.g., the caategory “youn
ng” receives much
m
of its m
meaning in oppposition to the
caategory “old””). Events or occurrences
o
th
hat increase th
he salience off social categoorization proccesses
caan enhance in
ngroup biases (Turner & Haslam,
H
2001).
A
According to Tajfel
T
and Turrner (1979; ciited in Postmees and Bransccombe, 2010)), ingroup biaas is not
neecessarily seeen as an inevittable outcome of social categorization, but relies on the followingg 3
coonditions:
x
x
x
The deegree to which
h identificatio
on with the in
ngroup definees one’s self-cconcept;
The ex
xtent to which
h the context allows
a
for com
mparison andd competitionn between groups;
and
The peerceived relev
vance of the comparison
c
ou
utgroup (in teerms of both rrelative and abbsolute
status)).
Iff these 3 cond
ditions are meet, they argue,, categorizatio
on or compariison processees may lead too
inngroup bias. It is believed, therefore, thaat one can pro
otect or even eenhance theirr sense of worrth and
beelonging by psychological
p
lly amplifying
g similarities among ingrouup members aand/or emphaasizing
ouutgroup differrences (Turneer, Oakes, Haaslam & McG
Garty, 1994).
H
However, bolstering one’s social
s
identity
y may come at
a a cost. Reseearch shows ssuch ingroup
faavouritism can
n be sufficien
nt to elicit disccriminatory behaviour
b
andd attitudes in ffavour of the
inngroup at the expense of th
he outgroup (T
Turner & Hasslam, 2001). F
For example, viewing the
inngroup as morrally superiorr to outgroupss can facilitatee discriminatiion or hostilitties (Brewer, 1999).
Inngroups also develop
d
stereo
otypes of outg
groups. Stereeotypes repressent our beliefs regarding tthe
chharacteristics,, attributes, an
nd behaviourss of others (H
Hilton & von H
Hippel, 1996)), and are bassed on
thhe knowledgee, beliefs, and expectations we hold abou
ut a group (K
Kunda, 1999). They can guide our
exxpectations ab
bout group membership
m
an
nd can colour (more often nnegatively) hhow we interppret
ouutgroup mem
mbers’ behavio
ours and traitss (Kunda). Co
onsidering thee context of inngroup biasinng,
inntergroup con
nflict is especiially amplified when group
p identities coome under thrreat or when
coompeting for scarce resourrces (Brewer; Fisher, 2000). Research aalso shows thaat under condditions
off uncertainty, those who sttrongly identify with their ingroup are m
more likely too derogate an
ouutgroup (McG
Gregor, Haji, & Kang, 200
08). So those who
w feel goodd about their own group sttatus
m
may make outg
group membeers feel badly about theirs. Indeed, reseaarch shows thhat low status groups
seee their own group
g
less possitively than members
m
of high
h
status grooups (Brown,, 1978, 1984; Brown
& Wade, 1987
7).
Im
mportantly, so
ocial identity theory also considers how
w group identiification can sshape social cchange,
esspecially wheen addressing a negative so
ocial identity. Considered ffrom an inverrse perspectivve, i.e.,
soocial compariisons yielding
g unfavourablle results (e.g.., an ingroup sees itself as inferior to ann
ouutgroup on reelevant dimen
nsions), accord
ding to SIT, group
g
membeers can adopt strategies to
allleviate negative attribution
ns stemming from affiliation with a neggatively consttructed groupp. In
SIIT, ingroup id
dentification is
i described as
a a variable that
t mediates the relation bbetween the
Paage 6
Humanssystems®
sociostructu
ural variabless and identity managementt strategies (e..g., Mummenndey, Kessler et al.,
1999; Mum
mmendey, Klin
nk et al., 1999
9). When stattus relations aare perceived as unstable aand
illegitimatee, dominant grroup memberrs should expeerience a decrrease in ingrooup identificaation
whereas no
on-dominant members
m
shou
uld experiencce an increasee in ingroup iddentification.
Understood
d as identity management
m
strategies,
s
Tajjfel and Turner (1986) idenntify three – iindividual
mobility, so
ocial creativitty, and social competition. However, thhe strategy grooup members adopt is
dependent on
o perception
ns of sociostru
uctural beliefs
fs. Thus, it is iimportant to ddefine these hhere before
describing the
t identity management
m
strategies.
s
There are th
hree sociostru
uctural variab
bles that are prrominent in thhe psychologgical literaturee (Tajfel &
Turner, 198
86), including
g:
x
x
x
Sta
ability of statu
us: the extent to which grouup positions aare static and unchanging oover time;
Leg
gitimacy of status: the exteent to which hhigh and low status groupss accept the sttatus
stru
ucture as bein
ng valid; and
Perrmeability of group bound
daries: the exttent to which group membeers can leave a group
and
d become partt of another group.
g
As the mod
del in Figure 1 illustrates, adopting
a
an iddentity managgement strateggy derives froom
perceptionss of these sociiostructural beliefs.
Figure 1. The role
r
of socio
ostructural beliefs in id
dentificatio
on and identtity
management
m
t strategies
s (Tajfel & T
Turner, 1986
6)
For examplle, individual mobility refeers to the movve from one ggroup to anothher group to ppromote
social status. However, for
f this to occcur, group bouundaries musst be permeable. Social creativity, on
the other haand, is a strateegy employed
d when groupp boundaries aare viewed ass impermeablee, but
group status is relatively
y stable. Even
n though ingrooup members are not able tto move beyoond the
group, they
y increase theiir own distincctiveness by m
making creativve comparisoons between thheir own
group and the
t outgroup (e.g.,
(
making positive evalluations of the ingroup bassed on atypicaal
dimensionss or devaluing
g the importan
nce of charactteristics that rreflect poorlyy on the ingrouup). This
strategy esssentially requires redefinin
ng the comparrative contextt by introducing new dimennsions of
comparison
n, flaunting in
ngroup traits, and shifting tto new compaarison groupss to bolster grooup
identity stattus (Ellemers, van Rijswijk
k, Roefs, & S
Simons, 1997)). In responsee to impermeaability or
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 7
w
when status ineequality is seeen as unstablee, groups can employ sociaal competitionn. This strategy
reeflects collecttive action on the part of diisadvantaged group membbers (van Zom
meren, Postmees and
Sppears, 2008). The strategy employed is a result of thee perceptionss of sociostrucctural beliefs for
hiigh and low status
s
groups. The model also suggests that
t ingroup iidentification mediates the
reelation betweeen the sociosttructural variaables and iden
ntity managem
ment strategiees (e.g.,
M
Mummendey, Kessler et al., 1999; Mummendey, Klin
nk et al., 19999).
W
Work by Blanzz, Mummendey, Mielke, and Klink (199
98) has gone beyond the m
model createdd by
Tajfel and Turn
ner (1986) an
nd suggested that
t the strateegies employeed by individuuals to managge their
soocial identity can be classiffied along two orthogonal dimensions. The first axiss in their taxonomy
iss termed “Chaange of Comp
parison Param
meters”. Here they assess w
whether or nott a strategy aiims to
chhange charactteristics aboutt the ingroup or the outgro
oup. For exam
mple, social coompetition dooes not
aiim to change the characteristic of eitherr group, but raather the relattive positions of the groups.
A
Assimilation, on
o the other hand,
h
aims to change the co
omposition off both the inggroup and the
ouutgroup. The second dimen
nsion they pro
opose is referrred to as the “Response M
Mode”, which
diistinguishes between
b
strateegies at the beehavioural lev
vel (e.g., alterring one’s behhaviour in ordder to
im
mprove their relative
r
statuss) versus those at the cogniitive level (e.gg., changing oone’s attitudee about
thhe importancee of the characcteristics on which
w
the gro
oups differ). B
Based on thesee dimensions, Blanz
ett al. hypothesize six catego
ories of identiity managemeent strategies,, which are ouutlined in Tabble 3.
T
Table 3. The 3 × 2 taxo
onomy of identity mana
agement strrategies folllowing neg
gative
social
s
identiity (Blanz ett al., 1998, p 722)
Noote. Table 3 showss assignments of identity managem
ment strategies to the
t cells of the moodified taxonomy. Change of Compaarison
Paarameters differenntiates responses to
t negative social identity accordingg to their specific cchanges in the com
mparison subject ((the
inggroup) and/or the comparison objecct (the outgroup). Response
R
Mode considers
c
whether strategies are eithher predominantlyy
beehaviour-related or primarily cognitioon-oriented. Each cell of the taxonomy contains the laabel of the respecttive cluster (underrlined
woords) as well as thhe single strategiess assigned to each cluster. The cell Behavioural Channge of Comparisoon Object has been derived
theeoretically based on
o the results of thhe present study.
Itt should be no
oted that the strategies listeed go beyond those discusssed by Tajfel and Turner (1986)
annd are known
n by various names
n
across the
t various reesearch prograams. Howeveer, each strateegy
lissted by Blanzz et al. (1998)) can be discu
ussed as a form
m of one of thhe three strateegies suggesteed by
Tajfel and Turn
ner. For exam
mple, employiing a new com
mparison grouup can be thoought of as a fform of
soocial creativitty or superord
dinate recateg
gorization can
n be understoood as an indivvidual mobilitty
sttrategy (see Kessler
K
and Mummendey,
M
2002
2
and Horrnsey and Hoggg, 2002 in C
Chapter 4).
Throughout thee report, iden
ntity managem
ment strategiess will be categorized, as beest possible,
acccording to Tajfel and Turn
ner’s three brroad descriptiions – individdual mobility, social creativvity,
annd social com
mpetition.
H
Having describ
bed in brief th
he critical asp
pects of sociall identity (how
w it arises, hoow it is bolsteered,
ettc.) and relevaant theoreticaal frameworkss, we can now
w examine thee current scienntific literaturre
Paage 8
Humanssystems®
pertaining to
t the role of sociostructural beliefs in i dentity manaagement strateegies and inteergroup
perceptionss. The followiing investigattion looks speecifically at how high and low status grooup
members un
nderstand thee intergroup sttructure, and how the diffeerence in understanding influences
social identtity and manaagement strateegies to mainttain, promotee or change soocial identities. It was
also pertineent to uncoverr any research
h that looked at the impactt of behaviourrs associated with
identity maanagement strategies had on social identtification andd the sociostruuctural beliefss. Finally,
this investig
gation consid
dered the psycchological meethodologies uused to manippulate and meeasure
sociostructu
ural beliefs an
nd managemeent strategies. Also, as partt of this reporrt, the scientiffic status
of the concept of secularr and scientifiic fundamentaalism was revviewed, includding identifyiing
existing meeasures related
d to these con
nstructs. The final chapter also investigaates how a seecular,
st world view
scientific orr humanistic fundamentali
f
w might influeence health annd well-beingg as well
as cognition
n.
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 9
TH
HIS PAGE IN
NTENTIONALLY LEFT B
BLANK.
Paage 10
Humanssystems®
4. How do
o socio
ostructtural be
eliefs o
of stab
bility,
le
egitima
acy, an
nd perm
meabillity inflluence
e
so
ocial id
dentity
y mana
ageme
ent stra
ategies
s for
high and low status
s group
ps? (4..7.3)
Sociostructtural beliefs in
nfluence the identity
i
manaagement strateegies memberrs of high andd low
status group
ps use to main
ntain or bolstter their sociall identity in ccomparison too other groupss. And
there is evid
dence that beliefs about the legitimacy, stability, andd permeabilityy of the interggroup
structure will differ betw
ween high and
d low status ggroups (Verkuuyten & Reijeerse, 2008). Foor
example, when
w
group bo
oundaries are construed as permeable, m
members from
m high status ggroups
members,
may be threeatened by thee prospects off expanded paarticipation inn their group by outgroup m
whereas people in low sttatus groups may
m see this aas an opportuunity for upwaard social mobility.
When the status structurre is seen as sttable and legiitimate, membbers from higgh status grouups may
feel secure in their positiion. Those fro
om low statuss groups, on tthe other handd, may perceiive less
opportunity
y for collectiv
ve action. As such,
s
high annd low status ggroups may uuse different sstrategies
to manage their
t
social id
dentity concerrns.
The researcch reviewed in
n this chapterr considers hoow sociostrucctural beliefs oof stability, leegitimacy,
and permeaability influen
nce social iden
ntity strategiees to manage threats to soccial standing ffor high
and low staatus groups. The
T following sections con sider researchh that specificcally examinees each
sociostructu
ural belief. Th
he first section looks at thee impact perceeptions of staability have onn identity
managemen
nt strategies, the
t second seection looks aat the influencce of legitimacy, and the thhird
permeabilitty. In cases where
w
research
hers examine m
more than onne sociostructuural belief in the same
study, the article
a
is categ
gorized accord
ding to the m
most predominnant variable. It should alsoo be noted
that many researchers
r
usse terms and concepts
c
otheer than those uused by Tajfeel and Turner (1986),
i.e., individ
dual mobility, social creativ
vity, and sociial competitioon, to describee identity mannagement
strategies (ee.g., Blanz et al., 1998). As best possiblle, we subsum
me these undeer Tajfel and T
Turner’s
classificatio
on system.
4.1
Stability and
d Identity Managem
ment Strattegies
A number of
o recent stud
dies have look
ked at the imppact stability hhas on social identity and
managemen
nt strategies in
nvoked when
n the status is unstable. Forr example, in a series of stuudies,
Nadler and Halabi (2006
6) examined low
l status grooup members’ willingness to seek and rreceive
help from high
h
status meembers, and tested whetherr their willinggness is depenndent on the eextent to
which they perceive stattus differences as being staable, their level of ingroup identity, andd the kind
of help thatt is offered. They
T
argued th
hat, in helpingg relations, thhere are inhereently unequall status
relations su
uch that the heelper has suffficient resourcces to offer thhe recipient annd the recipieent is
reliant on th
he goodwill of
o the helper. This inequaliity, however, can be potenttially threatenning to
those who are
a on the recceiving end off help (Nadlerr & Fisher, 19986; cited in N
Nadler & Hallabi).
Research on
n helping relaations has sho
own that indivviduals can reespond negatiively to help w
when they
feel threatened (Nadler & Fisher, 198
86; cited in Naadler & Halabbi). Previous research show
ws that
recipients of
o help tended
d to evaluate themselves
t
m
more negativelly, if the helper was from a
dominant group
g
(e.g., Haalabi, 2003, as
a cited in Naddler & Halabi). Nadler andd Halabi sugggest that
accepting help
h in this cirrcumstance may
m reinforce an existing sttatus differennce. Low statuus
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 11
reecipients, they
y continue, may
m be threaten
ned as a resullt. However, the kind of hhelp offered caan alter
thhe perception of threat (Naadler, 1997, 19
998; cited in Nadler
N
& Hallabi).
A
According to Nadler
N
and Haalabi (2006), dependency-o
oriented help consists of ooffering the reecipient
thhe full solution to a problem
m, implying the
t recipient has
h difficulty resolving thee problem on their
ow
wn. On other hand, autono
omy-oriented help consists of offering a partial solutiion to a probllem,
suuch as giving hints or instrructions, and this
t implies th
hat the recipieent has the tools and skillss to
soolve the probllem on their own
o with min
nimal assistance (Brickmann et al., 1982; cited in Nadler &
H
Halabi). Based
d on these find
dings, Nadlerr and Halabi predicted
p
that when low staatus group meembers
arre offered dep
pendency-orieented help, bu
ut not autonom
my-oriented hhelp from higgher-status meembers,
thhey may perceeive the help to be in confllict with theirr motivation too attain equall status. Thosse who
iddentify more strongly
s
with their ingroup
p tend to respo
ond to identitty threat moree defensively,, for
exxample, show
wing more identification wiith their threaatened ingroupp, more ingrooup favouritissm,
m
more stereotyp
ping against th
he outgroup (Ellemers,
(
Speears, & Doosjje, 1999; cited in Nadler &
H
Halabi), and viiew ingroups and outgroup
ps as more homogenous (R
Rothgerber, 19997, as cited iin
N
Nadler & Halaabi). Nadler an
nd Halabi preedicted that lo
ow status mem
mbers who higghly identify with
thheir ingroup would
w
be more reluctant to seek and receive help from
m higher-statuus members
coompared to th
hose who weaakly identify with
w their ingroup, but onlyy when the heelp is dependdencybuut not autonom
my-oriented. Moreover, th
hey argued thaat this would be impacted when low staatus
m
members perceeived status reelations as un
nstable, makin
ng them relucctant to seek oor receive
deependency-orriented help from
fr
high status members. A summary oof their interggroup helpingg
reelations modeel is presented
d in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Intergroup helping rellations as affected
a
by p
perceived le
egitimacy a
and
stability of
o power re
elations betw
ween group
ps (Nadler, 2
2002; cited in Nadler a
and
Halabi, 2006,, p. 99)
Paage 12
Humanssystems®
In general, Nadler and Halabi
H
(2006) expected low
w status membbers to experiience social iddentity
threat when
n they perceiv
ved status diffferences as unnstable and w
when their deppendence on hhigh status
members fo
or help is inco
onsistent with
h their goal too improve theiir social posittion. They exppected
low status members
m
to reespond to identity threat byy expressing low affect annd by striving to
g against andd devaluing thhe high status outgroup,
positively distinguish
d
theemselves by discriminating
d
and by percceiving ingrou
up and outgro
oup members as more hom
mogeneous (Sttudies 1 and 22). They
also expected that this paattern of findiings would hoold for high bbut not low iddentifiers (Stuudy 3).
Finally, low
w status memb
bers who high
hly identify w
with their ingrroup, they arggued, would bbe the least
likely to waant help from high status member
m
whenn status relatioons are seen aas unstable annd
dependency
y-oriented hellp is offered (Study
(
4). Low
w status, highh ingroup idenntifiers may bbe more
willing to reject help and
d rely more on
n their own reesources to m
manage identitty threat. Givven Nadler
and Halabi’’s study 4 buiilds on the fin
ndings from S
Studies 1-3 annd enables a fu
full test of the
predictions of the intergrroup helping model illustraated above, oonly Study 4 is described inn detail.
6) used a 2 (high ingroup iddentification vs. control) × 2 (stable vs.. unstable
Nadler and Halabi (2006
relations) between-partic
b
cipants design
n for their fouurth study. Paarticipants weere 56 high schhool
students fro
om a midsize town in north
hern Israel. Inn the first partt of the study,, the experimenter was
introduced to participantts as an emplo
oyee of the Issraeli Ministryy of Educatioon and told theem that
they were taking part in a study exam
mining differennt forms of pssychometric ttesting involvving
assessments of verbal an
nd analytical abilities.
a
Partiicipants weree told that theiir high schooll and
another hig
gh school, thatt was prestigiious and reputtable, were seelected to reppresent northeern Israel.
Participantss were then prresented with
h the status staability manipuulation. In thee stable conddition,
participantss were told th
hat comparativ
ve analyses ovver the past 5 years showeed that, in genneral, their
school had performed worse than the prestigious s chool on num
merous criteriaa (e.g., entry into
selective un
niversity prog
grams). In the unstable conndition, particcipants were ttold that compparative
analyses ov
ver the past 5 years showed
d that the gap between theiir school and the more prestigious
school was becoming naarrower. Participants were then presenteed with the iddentity manipuulation. As
part of the cover
c
story th
hat the study was
w about psyychometric teesting, particippants were assked to
read a shortt article that they
t
would latter be tested oon to assess thheir verbal abbilities. In thee high
ingroup ideentification co
ondition, partiicipants read an article aboout their high school that w
was
allegedly pu
ublished in th
he local comm
munity newsppaper. The artiicle describedd the history oof their
school and praised the scchool, remark
king on past aand current stuudents’ comm
mitment to thee school.
In the contrrol condition, participants read
r
an articl e about envirronmental issuues. Afterwarrds,
participantss were asked to
t answer queestions pertainning to the arrticle and alsoo completed
manipulatio
on check quesstions.
Following this,
t
Nadler and
a Halabi (20
006) told partticipants that their interactiive analytic skills
would be asssessed, but in
n actuality their willingnesss to seek helpp was assesseed. They weree given 5
index cardss with math prroblems and were
w requiredd to solve eacch of them in 660 seconds. T
Two of the
problems were
w easy to so
olve, whereass the other thrree were unsoolvable. Beforre participantts moved
on to the “interactive” paart of the stud
dy, they were asked to pickk one of threee choices for eeach of the
problems th
hat they were unable to sollve:
(a) Not wanting help from a student
s
who aattended the oother school aand is also woorking on
the same problem
m (i.e., avoid
dance of seekiing help);
(b) Wanting the solution to th
he problem frrom the other student (i.e., seeking depeendencyorieented help); or
o
(c) Wanting a hiint from the other
o
student tto help them ssolve the probblem (i.e., seeeking
auttonomy-orientted help).
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 13
Foor each of theese options, th
he number off times the parrticipant seleccted each of thhe responses was
coomputed so th
hat scores can
n range from 0 (i.e., never choosing thiss option) to 3 (i.e., choosinng this
opption for all th
hree unsolvab
ble problems)).
Prreliminary an
nalyses showeed that the staability and ideentification m
manipulations were successful.
N
Nadler and Haalabi (2006) co
onducted a tw
wo-way ANOVA was condducted on avooidance of hellpseeeking, and reesults showed
d that there waas a significan
nt interactionn between stabbility and
iddentification. Follow-up an
nalyses showeed that particiipants who highly identifieed with their
inngroup were more
m
likely to
o avoid asking
g for help wheen status relattions were unnstable. Particcipants
inn the control condition
c
show
wed no differrences in theirr tendency to avoid help-seeking betweeen the
sttable and unsttable conditio
ons. For depen
ndency-orientted help-seekking, a t-test w
within each
iddentification condition
c
wass conducted because
b
at leasst one cell hadd a value of zzero. Results
shhowed that peeople who hig
ghly identified
d with their in
ngroup soughht more depenndency-help w
when
sttatus relationss were stable versus
v
unstab
ble. No differeences were obbserved betw
ween the two sstability
coonditions amo
ong those in the
t control co
ondition. Baseed on the finddings for avoiddance and
deependency-orriented help, it
i would not be
b possible fo
or Nadler and Halabi to finnd a significannt
innteraction for the autonomy
y-oriented help because paarticipants weere required too select one oof the
thhree kinds of help.
h
A
Across the fou
ur studies, Nad
dler and Halaabi (2006) fou
und support foor their predicctions. Their
findings indicaated that low status
s
membeers are reluctaant to seek annd receive helpp from high sstatus
m
members when
n the relationss between thee two groups are
a perceivedd as unstable aand when helpp is
deependency-orriented. And this
t is most ch
haracteristic of
o low status m
members whoo highly idenntify
w
with their ingro
oup. Furtherm
more, under conditions of unstable
u
statuus relations, loow status mem
mbers
reeported less positive affectt, more likely to show discrrimination aggainst high staatus outgroupp
m
members (or more
m
ingroup favouritism), more likely to
t hold negatiive evaluationns about the
ouutgroup, and more likely to
o perceive thee outgroup ass more homoggenous, but onnly when the high
sttatus outgroup
p offered help
p.
O
One could argu
ue that receiv
ving help from
m a high statuss member maay be particulaarly threateniing to
loow status mem
mbers’ social identity, becaause it may bee seen as reinnforcing the exxisting statuss
sttructure, If seeeking to imprrove their social position frrom within, loow status highh identifiers m
may
reeject help and
d express greaater ingroup faavouritism (as Nadler and Halabi’s resuults suggests,)),
thhereby promo
oting their own
n group. Nadler and Halab
bi’s (2006) ressults suggest that when help is
offfered, low status high iden
ntifiers engag
ge in social co
ompetition esppecially whenn the social
sttructure is vieewed as unstab
ble.
O
On the other haand, offering dependency--oriented help
p to a low stattus group mayy be a way for high
sttatus members to maintain their social standing
s
when
n confronting challenges frrom low statuus
ouutgroups. Nad
dler, Harpaz-G
Gorodeisky, and
a Ben-David (2009) refeer to this as ddefensive helping,
i.ee., “help that is proffered to
t a member of
o an outgroup
p that poses a threat to thee ingroup’s staatus
annd that is used
d with the purrpose of mitig
gating that thrreat” (p. 823)). They argue that defensivve
heelping enablees the threaten
ned high statu
us group to re--establish its ppositive distinnctiveness, thhereby
m
maintaining the existing soccial order. Because defensiive helping iss used to neutr
tralize social iidentity
thhreat and man
nage challengees to identity,, Nadler et al.. explain that threatened hiigh status grooup
m
members should offer defen
nsive helping irrespective of
o recipients’ needs. Defennsive helping should
inn theory prom
mote dependen
ncy. Howeverr, this is a risk
ky strategy, beecause pre-em
mptively offerring
heelp might sign
nal to low staatus recipientss that they aree viewed as innadequate andd incompetennt by
hiigh status gro
oup members (Nadler et al., 2009).
Paage 14
Humanssystems®
Across threee studies, Naadler and colleeagues (2009)) showed thatt defensive heelping was ussed to avert
Study 1)
or amelioraate social iden
ntity threat, ev
voked by an eequal status group in a minnimal group (S
and a real-g
group (Study 2) context. Th
he findings frrom their firstt two studies generally suppported
defensive helping
h
as a sttrategy to deaal with threatss to social idenntity. In Studdy 1, the greattest
amount of help
h was prov
vided to the outgroup whenn participantss identified with the ingrouup and
when the ou
utgroup threaatened their so
ocial identity.. Also in Studdy 1, after parrticipants werre given
the opportu
unity to offer help
h to their source
s
of threeat, they expreessed less neeed to derogatee the
outgroup. Defensive
D
help
ping served as
a a strategy too maintain poositive distincctiveness. Naddler et
al.’s second
d study replicated the findiings from theiir first study, using real grooups. The greeatest
offering waas given to thee target that was
w threateninng to participaants’ social iddentity. The rresults also
indicated th
hat when partiicipants’ sociial identity waas threatened,, those who hhighly identifyy with the
ingroup ten
nded to use deefensive helpiing regardlesss of whether tthe help targeet needed assistance.
The furtherr finding that collective (an
nd not personaal) self-esteem
m moderated the associatioon
between ideentity threat and
a helping behaviour provvides evidencce that the diffferent levels of
defensive helping
h
show that individuaals’ social ideentities are beeing threateneed to differentt degrees.
Nadler et all. (2009) also examined deefensive helpiing in an interrgroup contexxt, specificallyy to
determine if
i an unstable social contex
xt will lead hiigh status grooup members to offer moree
dependency
y-oriented hellp to a lower--status group tto manage id entity threats. Again, a thrreat to the
existing soccial order mig
ght elicit moree dependencyy-oriented hellp than autonoomy-orientedd help from
the high staatus group. In
n addition, Nadler et al. expplored the role of social caategorization pprocesses,
such that when
w
a commo
on identity beetween the inggroup and outtgroup is induuced, high staatus
members sh
hould be less threatened th
han when the ttwo groups arre induced to have unique or
separate ideentities. They
y thought that a common iddentity shouldd elicit more aautonomy-oriiented
help, whereeas separate id
dentities shou
uld elicit moree dependencyy-oriented hellp to essentiallly
maintain diistinctiveness.
Because Naadler and collleagues’ (2009) third studyy examined thhe effects of uunstable status relations
on defensiv
ve helping and
d the use of defensive
d
helpping by high sstatus group m
members to m
manage
social identtity threat, wee have describ
bed the methoodology in deetail. The thirdd study was a 2 (stable
vs. unstablee status hierarrchy) × 3 (sep
parate identitiies vs. commoon identity vss. control) bettweensubjects dessign. Participants were 92 students whoo attended a pprestigious higgh school in IIsrael and
were told th
hat they woulld be part of a research proogram to deveelop new psycchological toools to be
used in the Defence Forcces’ unit. Theey were also ttold that the reesearch was cconducted bettween
pairs of hig
gh schools in the
t same region and that thhe pairs were selected at raandom. The sstudents
learned thatt the school th
hey were pairred with was iinferior in theeir academic rreputation annd less
prestigious relative to th
heir own schoo
ol based on thhe rankings oof 10 educatorrs.
p of study, Nadler et al. (2009) preseented participaants with the self-categorizzation
In the first part
manipulatio
on. In the separate identities condition, participants rread about hoow their high school
was uniquee relative to otther high scho
ools in Israel.. In the comm
mon identity coondition, theyy read
about the sp
pecial qualitiees of the high
h schools in thheir region. Inn the control ccondition, theey read
about a topic unrelated to high schoolls. Participantts then answeered some queestions based on what
they read. In
I the second part of the stu
udy, Nadler eet al. presenteed participantss with the maanipulation
for status sttability of inteergroup relatiions. In the sttable status coondition, partticipants weree given
information
n that the perfformance of th
he lower-statuus outgroup hhas not changged over the ppast five
years, wherreas in the unsstable status condition, theey were told tthat the performance of thee outgroup
has been prrogressively im
mproving oveer the past fivve years.
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 15
Paarticipants weere then given
n 14 analogy problems, 6 of
o which weree marked shoowing that a sttudent
frrom the other high school had
h difficulty
y solving the analogy.
a
Nadller et al. then informed
paarticipants thaat this phase of
o the study focused
f
on decision-makinng behaviour rrather than prroblemsoolving abilitiees, and so they
y were presen
nted with the correct answeer to each of tthe analogies. For
eaach of the 6 marked
m
analog
gies that the other
o
student had
h difficultyy solving, partticipants had to
deecide if they wanted
w
to pro
ovide the stud
dent with the full
f solution ((i.e., dependenncy-oriented help),
a hint that wou
uld help the sttudent solve the
t analogy (i.e., autonomyy-oriented hellp), or no helpp at all.
N
Nadler and collleagues (2009) found that when high sttatus memberrs’ social posiition was threeatened
byy an unstable status contex
xt, they offereed defensive helping
h
to thoose that posedd a threat. Thee effect
off status stability on defensiive helping was
w moderated
d by the level of categorizaation. When sstatus
reelations were perceived as unstable, high status mem
mbers who werre induced to think about ttheir
inngroup and th
he outgroup ass distinct from
m one anotherr (separate ideentities) tendeed to offer moore
deependency-orriented help compared to th
hose that werre induced to tthink that thee two groups w
were
siimilar (comm
mon identity) or
o those in thee control cond
dition (Nadlerr et al.). Undeer unstable staatus
reelations, high status members offered more
m
autonomy
y-oriented heelp when theyy perceived a
coommon identiity between th
heir ingroup and
a the lowerr-status outgrooup comparedd to those thaat
peerceived uniq
que identities and those in the
t control co
ondition. Baseed on these fiindings, it seeems
thhat defensive helping can be
b used by hig
gh status grou
ups to managee threats to thheir social identity.
O
Offering help when
w
the statu
us context is unstable
u
serves to maintainn positive disstinctiveness ffor
hiigh status gro
oups and to maintain the staatus quo.
Sccheepers (200
09) has also examined
e
the impact of stability on idenntity managem
ment strategiees. In
onne study, he considered
c
if threat or challlenge would be experiencced by high orr low status ggroups
w
when differencces in status were
w stable veersus unstablee during interggroup compettition, and whhat
sttrategies that might
m
provok
ke. Past researrch has shown
n that when loow status grooups are challeenged,
thhey may engaage in function
nal coping, which
w
can inclu
ude maintain ing commitm
ment to the grooup
(E
Ellemers, Speears, & Doosjee, 1997), exerrting more eff
ffort to better tthe group’s social standingg
(O
Ouwerkerk, De
D Gilder, & De
D Vries, 200
00), and acting
g to disconfirrm negative sttereotypical
exxpectation (K
Kray, Thompso
on, & Galinsk
ky, 2001; citeed in Scheepeers, 2009). For Scheepers,
m
members in low
w status grou
ups in stable conditions would be most llikely to experience threatss to
thheir social ideentity, becausee they lack a strong positiv
ve group distiinctiveness. H
However, he
beelieved this would
w
change under unstab
ble conditions. He argued th
that threats to social identitty may
tuurn into a challlenge, because the unstablle condition may
m present aan opportunityy to improve their
sttatus. Functional coping might
m
be descriibed as sociall competition . In contrast, high status grroup
m
members may feel threateneed by status in
nstability beccause they aree confronted w
with a challennge by
a low status group and as su
uch their supeerior social staanding becom
mes tenuous (ee.g., Bettencoourt,
C
Charlton, Doorr, & Hume, 2001). When status
s
is stablee, high status members weere not expectted to
feeel challenged
d because theiir position in the status stru
ucture would be positive aand secure.
To test his hyp
potheses, Scheeepers (2009)) randomly asssigned 40 unndergraduate sstudents to a 2
(G
Group Status: Low vs. Hig
gh) × 2 (Statuss Stability: Un
nstable vs. Sttable) design with stabilityy as the
w
within-subjectss factor. He used
u
three card
diovascular in
ndices to meaasure threat annd challenge,
inncluding ventrricular contraactility (VC) (the
( force of heart
h
pumps);; cardiac outpput (CO) (amoount of
bllood the heartt pumps in on
ne minute); an
nd total periph
heral resistannce (TPR) (ressistance of thee
arrterioles). Acccording to Scheepers, threaat is marked by
b relatively llower cardiacc performancee (VC
annd CO) and higher
h
vasculaar resistance (TPR),
(
whereaas challenge iis marked by higher cardiaac
peerformance an
nd lower resistance. Senso
ors for physiological recordding were putt on participannts and
baaseline cardio
ovascular resp
ponses were recorded.
r
Paage 16
Humanssystems®
Scheepers’ (2009) particcipants were told
t
that the s tudy examineed reasoning aand problem--solving
ability. Theey were told th
hat people wiith inductive oor deductive reasoning skiills were betteer problem
solvers. Parrticipants com
mpleted a reassoning test thaat supposedlyy categorized them as being better at
either inducctive or deducctive reasonin
ng, when, in ffact, they werre all told thatt they were innductive
reasoners. Participants
P
were
w then askeed to complette two problem
m-solving tassks.
The first tassk was a num
mber-counting
g task which w
was used to m
manipulate grooup status. Paarticipants
were asked to count as quickly
q
as posssible the num
mber of times a specific nuumber would aappear on
the computer screen, and
d they were to
old that their pperformance would be bassed on the acccuracy of
their respon
nses. Those in
n the low statu
us condition w
were told thatt their group ((i.e., inductivve
reasoners) performed
p
wo
orse on the task than did thhe outgroup (ii.e., deductivee reasoners). In the
high status condition, paarticipants were told the oppposite. To innduce status sttability, particcipants
were then told that the seecond task, a letter-countinng task, was vvery similar to the previouus task.
They comp
pleted a letter--counting task
k which used a similar form
mat to the firsst task exceptt they
counted lettters instead of numbers. Peerformance onn the first tassk would be a good indicattor of how
they would perform on the
t second tassk. Participannts then movedd on to the thhird task, whicch was a
word-findin
ng task (see Blascovich,
B
Mendes,
M
Hunteer, Lickel, & K
Kowai-Bell, 22001, as citedd in
Scheepers, 2009, for a siimilar task). They
T
were tolld that this tassk was quite ddifferent in foormat than
the numberr- and letter-co
ounting taskss. As such, theeir performannce on the preevious two tassks would
not be a goo
od predictor of
o how they would
w
do on tthis task. Thiss information was intendedd to give
participantss the perceptio
on that group
p differences iin status woulld be unstablee during this final task.
Participantss were given 5 minutes to find
f
as many words as posssible in a maatrix of letterss.
Again, Scheepers’ (2009
9) main depen
ndent measuree was the carddiovascular reeactivity (VC
C, CO,
TPR) durin
ng the letter-co
ounting and word-finding
w
tasks to assesss reactions too stable and uunstable
status differrences respecctively. The nu
umber of worrds that particcipants foundd during the w
wordfinding task
k was used ass a performancce measure. M
Manipulation check items were adminisstered after
each manip
pulation, and the
t results ind
dicated that thhe manipulatiions were effeective. To testt the main
hypotheses, the three carrdiovascular indices
i
were ssubmitted to a 2 (Group Sttatus: Low vss. High) ×
2 (Status Sttability: Unstaable vs. Stablle) repeated m
measures analyysis, with thee correspondinng
physiologiccal measure frrom the first task
t
as a covaariate (to conttrol for indiviidual differennces). As
shown in Figure 3, for alll three indicees, there was a significant interaction beetween Groupp Status
and Status Stability.
S
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 17
Figure 3. VC, CO, an
nd TPR as a function of
o group sta
atus and sta
atus stabilitty.
(Sche
eepers, 200
09, p. 231)
Sppecifically, when
w
status differences werre stable, low status membbers showed loower cardiovascular
reeactivity (VC and CO) and
d more resistan
nce (TPR), in
ndicating thatt they felt threeatened. In coontrast,
hiigh status mem
mbers showed higher card
diovascular reactivity and llower resistannce, indicatingg that
thhey felt more challenged by
y the situation
n. This latter finding was nnot expected. However, furrther
annalyses showeed that CO an
nd TPR levelss were not sig
gnificantly diffferent from zzero, meaningg that it
iss difficult to discern
d
whether threat or ch
hallenge was experienced. When status differences w
were
unnstable, low status
s
members felt more challenged
c
(m
marked by highher VC and C
CO, lower TP
PR),
w
whereas high status
s
members felt more th
hreatened (marked by low
wer VC and CO
O, higher TPR
R).
Low status gro
oup members performed beetter on the word-finding
w
taask than did hhigh status grroup
m
members, but performance
p
was
w not correelated with an
ny of the cardiiovascular reaactivity indices.
Sccheepers and Ellemers (20
005) argued th
hat studies examining the iimpact of threeat on social
iddentity, measu
ure threat at one
o point in time, typically
y after a statuss manipulationn, and this maay
reeflect responsses to the statu
us quo rather than responsees to possiblee changes in ssocial status. A
As
suuch, they exam
mined threat during
d
a perfo
formance situaation. They prredicted that members of llow
sttatus groups would
w
show a physiologicaal threat respo
onse when evaaluating theirr inferior posiition
(i.e., status quo
o), whereas members
m
of high status grou
ups would shhow a physioloogical threat
reesponse when
n evaluating a possible chan
nge in their su
uperior positiion (i.e., statuus loss). Theyy
appplied Blasco
ovich and Tom
maka’s (1996; cited in Scheepers & Elleemers) bio-pssycho-social m
model
off arousal regu
ulation to und
derstand interg
group relation
ns. Past researrch using thiss model has shhown
thhat there are validated
v
physsiological ind
dices of threatt and challengge when indivviduals are reqquired
too perform a taask, known ass “motivated performance
p
situations”.
s
F
For this experiiment, Scheeppers
annd Ellemers used
u
systolic blood
b
pressurre (SBP) and the
t mean arteerial pressure (MAP) to meeasure
thhreat responsees. The formeer indicates th
he maximum pressure
p
in thhe artery after each heartbeeat,
w
whereas the lattter indicates the mean preessure in the artery
a
during a complete caardiac cycle.
Paage 18
Humanssystems®
Scheepers and
a Ellemers (2005) used minimal
m
grouups for this stuudy. Status diifferences bettween the
ingroup and
d outgroup weere manipulatted by providding participannts with falsee feedback onn a group
task. Participants were to
old that their group either pperformed beetter (high staatus conditionn) or worse
(low status condition) th
han the outgro
oup. Participan
ants’ blood preessure was m
measured beforre they
completed the
t group task
k (baseline measure),
m
afterr they receiveed the feedbacck for the grouup task
(response to
o existing stattus differencees), and beforre an unexpeccted second roound of the grroup task
(response to
o perceived in
nstability of status
s
quo). A second rounnd of the groupp task servedd as
“renewed competition”
c
between
b
the ingroup and thhe outgroup. According too Scheepers annd
Ellemers, th
his introducess the possibiliity that the hi gh status grouup may lose ttheir superior position,
leading them
m to defend their
t
position against groupps that can thrreaten their sttatus. In contrrast,
renewed co
ompetition sho
ould be less th
hreatening to the low statuus group; afterr all, they havve
“nothing to
o lose”. In factt, Schmader and
a Major (19999; cited in S
Scheepers & Ellemers, 20005)
suggest that, in such situ
uations, low sttatus memberrs may disenggage from thee task if the grroups are
not perceived as importaant or the task
k is novel. Folllowing the reenewed comppetition, Scheepers and
Ellemers asssessed ingrou
up identification, personal self-esteem, and collectivve self-esteem
m, before
completing
g the second ro
ound of the taask.
Results con
nfirmed Scheeepers and Elleemers (2005) predictions. P
Participants iin the low stattus
condition sh
howed higherr blood pressu
ure after receiiving feedbacck about the ggroup task, whhereas
those in thee high status condition
c
show
wed higher b lood pressuree before a second round off the group
task was an
nnounced. Consistent with Scheepers (22009), low staatus members were more thhreatened
by the statu
us quo (stabiliity), whereas high status m
members weree more threateened by potenntial status
loss (instab
bility). Scheep
pers and Ellem
mers also founnd that the staatus manipulaation did not aaffect
personal self-esteem, bu
ut did affect co
ollective self--esteem. Speccifically, highh status membbers
reported greeater collectiv
ve self-esteem
m than low staatus memberss. Results alsoo indicated thhat group
identificatio
on moderates the effects off status on thrreat responses, such that only those whoo highly
identified with
w their grou
up showed a threat
t
responsse when they were not ablee to obtain a ppositive
social identtity (in the low
w status cond
dition) or wheen there is the possibility thhat they may lose their
positive soccial identity (iin the high staatus conditionn).
Though hig
gh and low staatus memberss can both expperience threaat in a perform
mance situatioon, the
results from
m Scheepers (2009) and Sccheepers and E
Ellemers (20005) show the basis of theirr threat
responses differ.
d
Moreov
ver, sociostru
uctural beliefss can not onlyy affect outcom
mes for attainning a
more positiive social iden
ntity, but they
y can also affe
fect individualls’ motivationnal processes that help
them attain that goal. In cases where status
s
is perceeived as unstaable, lower sttatus groups w
who
exhibit incrreased functio
onal coping (ee.g., socially ccompete) mayy better their social standinng, and
hence their social identitty. Scheepers (2009) show
wed that ingrouup identificattion and ingrooup bias
can be expllained not onlly in terms off threat, but allso in terms oof challenge.
Scheepers, Ellemers, and
d Sintemaarteensdijk (20099) expanded oon their earlierr work to inveestigate
further strattegies (e.g., collective
c
esteeem) to managge identity thhreat. They exxamined identtity threat
among high
h status memb
bers using botth explicit sellf-report and pphysiologicall measures. A
Again, they
used Blasco
ovich and Tom
maka’s (1996
6; cited in Schheepers et al.)) bio-psycho-social model to
measure ch
hanges in physsiology as a result
r
of threaat, i.e., increasses in systolicc blood pressuure (SBP)
and pulse pressure
p
(PP). They also measured diastoolic blood preessure (DBP)) because this is not
consistently
y related to sttress. In additiion, they expllored the assoociation betw
ween affect andd blood
pressure.
nt, Scheepers et al. (2009) eexamined ressponses to soccial identity thhreat for
For their firrst experimen
high status members (staatus artificiallly created in tthe lab) invollving stable veersus unstablee status
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 19
coonditions. Parrticipants receeived false feeedback on a group
g
reactionn time task, w
which categorrized
thhem into a hig
gher status gro
oup. Status sttability was th
hen manipulatted by inform
ming participaants
thhat they were required to do the task agaain, but with modified
m
stim
mulus materiaals, and that thheir
peerformance on the first task
k was a stron
ng (stable cond
dition) or weaak (unstable ccondition) preedictor
off the second task.
t
Participaants’ blood prressure readin
ngs were takenn before and after the
m
manipulation. Then they com
mpleted meassures that assessed positivee and negativve affect, as w
well as
coollective self--esteem. They
y hypothesizeed that particip
pants in the uunstable statuss condition w
would
shhow higher SB
BP and PP co
ompared to th
hose in the staable conditionn. However, thhey believed that
thhere would bee no difference in collective self-esteem
m measures (a variable oftenn used to asseess
soocial identity threat) for paarticipants in the
t two condiitions, becausse participantss being in a
reelatively high status group,, members in this status ten
nd to respondd defensively..
M
Manipulation checks
c
indicaated that particcipants correcctly identifiedd their group m
membership (i.e.,
hoolistic) and th
hat those in th
he stable cond
dition perceiveed more statuus stability thaan those in thhe
unnstable condition. Reactiviity scores for blood pressu
ure and pulse ppressure weree calculated bby
suubtracting thee baseline score (average reeadings beforre the manipuulation) from tthe postexxperimental score
s
(averagee readings after the manipu
ulation). Scheeepers et al. (22009) found ssome
suupport for theeir hypothesess. Results sho
owed that SBP
P and PP weree higher for pparticipants inn the
unnstable compared to stablee conditions. No
N differencees between coonditions weree found for D
DBP.
R
Results also in
ndicated that th
here were no differences in
n positive andd negative afffect between
coonditions. Ho
owever, when specific emo
otions were an
nalyzed, Scheeepers et al. foound that
paarticipants in the unstable condition feltt more upset and
a hostile thhan participannts in the stablle
coondition. Feelling upset waas also positiv
vely correlated
d with SBP annd PP, whichh supports theiir
arrgument that SBP and PP are
a indicatorss of threat. Mo
oreover, posittive emotionss did not correelate
w
with SBP or PP
P, providing further
f
support that the inccrease in bloood and pulse ppressure was nnot due
too positive task
k engagementt or general ex
xcitement. Reesults on the m
measure of coollective self--esteem
inndicated that there
t
was no difference
d
bettween the two
o conditions.
Inn Experiment 2, Scheepers et al. (2009) used gender as the contexxt to examine how existingg or
They focusedd on men, the higher
chhanging interg
group status relations
r
impaacts social ideentity threat. T
sttatus group, in
n response to women, the lower
l
status group.
g
Scheeppers et al. arguued that gendder
reelations can be seen in sociiety as relativ
vely unstable, with legislatiions and policcies supportinng
eqqual rights forr men and wo
omen, or as reelatively stablle, with such legislations aand policies having
onnly limited im
mpact within society.
s
Using
g both self-report and physsiological meeasures, they
prredicted that perceptions
p
of
o status instab
bility would be
b associated with more deefensive and
sttrategic conceerns, leading individuals
i
to
o fail to reportt experiences of threat eveen when they show
phhysiological indications
i
to the contrary.. They also prredicted that w
when individuuals interact w
with
ouutgroup mem
mbers, they wo
ould experience more threaat to their soc ial identity, bbut that their
exxperience of threat
t
may no
ot be conveyed in self-repo
ort measures.
M
Men and women participateed in either an
n intragroup or
o an intergrouup discussionn on one of thhree
toopics: gender neutral, conservative, or progressive.
p
For the experim
mental sessioons, the intraggroup
coondition conssisted of two same-sex
s
partticipants, wheereas the interrgroup condittion consistedd of one
m
male and one female
f
and paarticipants weere randomizeed assigned too debate topiccs. The gender
neeutral topic was
w about legaalizing drugs. Participants were random
mly assigned too take the oppposing
orr defending position. The conservative
c
topic
t
was cen
ntred on tradittional gender roles (womenn
sttaying home to
t care for a child,
c
rather th
han the fatherr), so that menn would perceeive their stattus to
bee stable. In th
he intergroup condition, meen were asked
d to defend thhis position annd women weere
assked to opposse it. In the intragroup cond
dition, particiipants were raandomly assiggned to defennd or
opppose the possition. The pro
ogressive topic (subsidies for childcare so that womeen can work) was
Paage 20
Humanssystems®
designed to
o make changiing gender relations saliennt. In the interrgroup condition, women w
were asked
to defend th
he position an
nd men were asked
a
to oppoose it. In the iintragroup conndition, particcipants
were randomly assigned
d to either defe
fend or opposee the positionn. Blood presssure was takenn at the
start of the study (to estaablish baseline) as well as bbefore and affter each debaate session. Sccheepers
et al. also in
ncluded meassures of modeern sexism (Sw
wim, Aikin, H
Hall, & Hunteer, 1995; citedd in
Scheepers et
e al.) and attiitudes toward
d affirmative aaction to deteermine if partiicipants respoond
strategically
y to self-report measures of
o gender relaations. They bbelieved that m
modern sexism
m would
be greatest for men, wheereas affirmattive action woould be stronggly endorsed by women inn an
intragroup versus
v
intergrroup context.
Scheepers et
e al. (2009) found
f
that meen showed thee highest PP dduring the proogressive topiic and
women sho
owed the high
hest PP during
g the conservaative topic. Thhe results alsoo indicated thhat men
showed hig
gher PP and SBP than wom
men for the prrogressive toppic in the interrgroup contexxt, but
there was no
n difference between
b
men
n and women iin the intragrooup conditionn. No effects were
found for DBP.
D
For the modern
m
sexism
m scale, menn expressed m
more sexism thhan women inn the
intragroup context,
c
but there was no difference
d
in tthe intergroupp context. Forr attitudes tow
ward
affirmative action, womeen were someewhat more liikely to suppoort affirmative action than men in
the intragro
oup context, th
han the interg
group contextt. According tto Scheepers and colleaguees, men
appeared more
m
threateneed when they evaluated chaanging gendeer relations, shhown in their levels of
PP and SBP
P, which tend
ded to be high
her in the pressence of wom
men, the low sttatus group, thhan in the
presence off other men. This,
T
they argued, implies m
men may perrceive themselves to be in ddanger of
losing theirr high status position.
p
However, Scheepers
S
et al.
a (2009) phy
ysiology meassures did not parallel the self-report meeasures. In
words, men
n tended to su
uppress their expression
e
off sexism in ann intergroup coontext compaared to an
intragroup context.
c
Wheen women evaluated changging gender rrelations, theyy did not show
w the same
pattern as men.
m This provides supportt that the physsiological chaanges in men were due to tthe
possibility of
o status loss rather than general arousaal due to unstaable group rellations. Wom
men
showed thee highest PP when
w
they disccussed the coonservative toopic in the preesence of menn (although
this was not statistically different from
m their PP whhen they weree discussing tthe progressivve topic).
Women alsso expressed less
l support for
fo affirmativee action in thee intergroup tthan intragrouup context.
Scheepers et
e al (2009) sh
howed that an
n intergroup ccontext can inncrease physioological respoonses
based on grroup status an
nd the stability
y of the statuss, and this, thhey argue, resuults from sociial identity
threat. They
y further show
wed that in an
n intergroup ccontext, indivviduals might be cagey withh respect
to how one actually feelss. Men expresssed less sexiism whereas w
women expreessed less suppport for
affirmation
n action in the presence of outgroup
o
mem
mbers. Alterinng the expression of these attitudes
may have served as a waay to avoid neegative evaluaations from ooutgroup mem
mbers. Being sseen as a
male chauv
vinist or as a radical
r
feminiist implies cerrtain negativee stereotypicaal expectationns. People
may be morre cautious an
nd strategic when
w
it comess to articulatinng their feelinngs to others. Such an
approach might
m
help to manage
m
one’ss social identiity in the facee of threat.
Again, Scheepers et al. (2009)
(
demon
nstrate that higgh status grouups are more threatened byy the
possibility that
t they may
y lose their su
uperior status,, whereas low
w status groupps are more thhreatened
by the possibility that the status quo will
w remain unnchanged. Mooreover, responsiveness too changes
in status staability invokees different ap
pproaches to m
manage this, aand this is deppendent on w
whether
one belongss to a high staatus group or a low status ggroup. Scheeepers et al. shhowed that peoople’s
feelings maay be inconsisstent with their attitudes annd perceptionns, and this coould be intentiionally
strategic.
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 21
O
Other research
h has looked at
a the impact of
o the percepttion of stabiliity and the funnctional use oof
inngroup bias (ffavouritism) in maintaining
g or promotin
ng social identtity. Scheeperrs, Spears, Dooosje,
annd Manstead (2006) argued
d that ingroup
p bias could serve
s
two funnctions. An ideentity-expressive
fuunction encou
urages group members
m
to voice
v
the valu
ue of one’s grooup (e.g., boaasting), whereeas an
innstrumental fu
unction of ing
group bias inv
vokes change of a group’s relative sociaal position (e.g.,
soocial competition). They arrgued that thee status of thee group makess it more likely that a partiicular
foorm of ingrou
up bias might be favoured over
o
another. Specifically, for high statuus groups, thee
fuunction of ing
group bias is likely
l
identity
y expression since
s
they havve no desire ffor social channge.
O
On the other haand, Scheepers et al. believ
ve that memb
bers of a low sstatus groups might use ingroup
biias in order to
o mobilize soccial change. And
A they look
ked at how staability impactted these two
fuunctions.
Sccheepers et all. (2006) argu
ue that while high
h
status grroups who seee their conditiion as stable m
may
usse ingroup biaas as a meanss of identity expression, it is
i unlikely thaat high statuss groups who see
thhis condition as
a unstable would
w
use ingrroup bias. Theey argue that this might aleert lower statuus
grroups to the precariousnes
p
s of the situattion and mobiilize them to aaction. Sociall mobilizationn
w
would threaten
n the high stattus group’s po
osition. For lo
ow status grouups, subtlety is important. In
caases where th
he conditions are
a unstable and
a their statu
us can changee, low status ggroups shouldd be
m
more likely to use more sub
btle forms of ingroup
i
bias so
s as not to allert the higherr status groupp of
thheir desire forr change. On the
t other hand
d, Scheepers et al. argue thhat when low
w status groupss find
thhemselves in stable
s
conditiions, where th
heir status is unlikely
u
to chhange, they haave nothing too lose
annd are thus more
m
likely to use
u more extrreme forms of ingroup biass (i.e., identitty-expressive
fuunction). Thesse assumption
ns were exam
mined in a seriies of studies..
Sccheepers et all. (2006) firstt assessed wheether or not group
g
status annd the stabilitty of this statuus
m
might determin
ne the form of ingroup biass participants were likely tto exhibit in a minimal grooup
paaradigm. Partticipants weree ostensibly assigned to a group
g
based oon their abilityy to estimate the
nuumber of dotss on a screen. They were to
old that there were two cattegories of peerceivers (globbal and
deetailed). Scheeepers et al. to
old all of theirr participants that they werre detailed peerceivers baseed on
thheir previous task
t
performaance. They were further told that the grooup (global oor detailed
peerceivers) wh
ho performed best on the do
ot estimation task would bbe entered intoo a draw for a
reeward. Particiipants were giiven either neegative feedbaack about thee performancee of detailed
peerceivers (low
w status condiition) or posittive feedback
k (high status ccondition). T
They were thenn told
thhat the perform
mance in prev
vious sessionss had fluctuatted a great de al from one rround to anothher
(uunstable cond
dition) or had remained stab
ble from one round to anotther (stable coondition).
Paarticipants in Scheeper’s et
e al.’s (2006) study were also
a told that, during the seecond sessionn, there
w
would be an op
pportunity to receive feedb
back that wou
uld help their pperformance.. They wouldd decide
foor other particcipants (both ingroup and outgroup)
o
how
w much feedbback they wouuld receive. T
This
w
was done using
g Tajfel matriices that pitted four differin
ng allocation strategies ag ainst one anoother. A
m
maximum join
nt profit (MJP) strategy maaximizes the resources in b oth the ingrouup and outgrooup. A
faairness (F) strrategy allocatees equal resou
urces to the in
ngroup and ouutgroup otherrs. A maximuum
inngroup profit (MIP) strateg
gy aims to maaximize the reesources alloccated to the inngroup and a
m
maximum diffe
ferential (MD)) strategy max
ximizes the reelative differeence betweenn the resources of
thhe ingroup and outgroup ev
ven at the pottential cost to the ingroup pprofit. Scheeppers et al. repoort the
M
MD is considered the most aggressive an
nd most blatan
nt form of inggroup bias. U
Using the Tajfe
fel
m
matrices, pull scores
s
were calculated
c
thatt represented material ingrroup bias (i.e.., the bias for
prroviding moree material ressources to the ingroup rather than the ouutgroup). Sym
mbolic ingrouup bias
w
was measured with six item
ms representing either ingro
oup favouritissm (e.g., “Thee detailed percceivers
grroup is a supeerior group”) or outgroup derogation
d
(e..g., “Global pperceivers aree born losers”)).
Paage 22
Humanssystems®
Scheepers et
e al. (2006) conducted
c
a 2 (status: highh vs. low) × 2 (stability: staable vs. unstabble)
multivariatee analysis of variance
v
(MA
ANOVA) to aassess both the symbolic inngroup bias annd the two
material ing
group bias strrategies (MIP and MD). Thhey found a significant twoo-way interacction
between staatus and stability for both the
t material ssymbolic ingrroup bias and material MIP
P.
Participantss showed the greatest amou
unt of symboolic ingroup bias in the stabble, high statuus
condition and showed th
he greatest am
mount of mateerial MIP in thhe unstable, loow status conndition. As
such, ingrou
up bias strateegies fulfilled different funnctions for thee different grooups. As preddicted, high
status group
ps in stable co
onditions exh
hibited ingrouup bias expresssively, whereeas low statuss groups in
unstable co
onditions used
d ingroup biass instrumentallly.
Scheepers and
a colleaguees (2006) wan
nted to investiigate the diffeerent functionns of ingroup bias more
directly and
d to investigatte the impact of the audiennce on this strrategic use. They argued thhat the
audience fo
or ingroup straategies mightt alter the funcction of the inngroup bias, eespecially whhen
considering
g the status an
nd stability off the situationn. Scheepers eet al. argued thhat when ingrroup bias
is visible to
o members off the outgroup
p, it is likely too have an ideentity-expressive function.
Instrumentaal ingroup acttions in front of the outgrooup are counteerproductive, they argued, as it
underscoress mobilization
n, risking outtgroup mobiliization and coompetition (Ellemers et al.,, 2000;
cited in Sch
heepers et al, 2006). Imporrtantly, Scheeepers et al. bellieved that thhe awareness oof the
audience with
w regard to the
t use of ing
group favourittism would bbe most evidennt when the cconditions
are unstablee. They explaained that, in the stable conndition, wherre change is uunlikely, grouups have
little to losee by expressin
ng instrumenttal ingroup biias in front off the outgroupp. They reasonned that
ingroup meembers would
d pay little atteention to wheether or not ouutgroup mem
mbers were aroound so
long as the ingroup bias served its insstrumental funnction of inciiting action w
within the ingrroup.
p
were
w randomlyy assigned to a 2 (communnication conteext:
For their seecond study, participants
intragroup vs.
v intergroup
p) × 2 (group status: low vvs. high) × 2 (stability: unsttable vs. stablle)
between-grroups design. Scheepers et al. (2006) askked participannts to read a sshort scenarioo and
imagine theemselves as th
he main charaacter, “X”. Thhe story descrribed a handbball game betw
ween two
teams (“DD
DV” and “Pap
pendrecht”). At
A one point, X, who was ppart of the DD
DV team, madde a
derogatory comment abo
out the Papen
ndrecht team. In the intragrroup communnication condiition, this
statement was
w made only
y to the otherr DDV playerrs. In the interrgroup commuunication conndition, the
statement was
w made and
d it was clear that
t memberss of the Papenndrecht team could hear. W
Within the
low status condition,
c
parrticipants read
d that the DD
DV team was rranked 9th andd the Papendrrecht team
was ranked
d 1st. In the hig
gh status cond
dition, the rannkings were rreversed. In thhe stable conddition,
participantss were told th
hat this rankin
ng was the sam
me as it has beeen for years, whereas, parrticipants
read that th
he ranking had
d fluctuated a great deal ovver the past feew years in thhe unstable coondition.
Scheepers and
a colleaguees found a sig
gnificant threee-way interacttion for the innstrumental fuunction
measure. Within
W
the low
w status condittion, when thhe statement w
was made so tthat only the iingroup
could hear it (intragroup
p condition), the
t statement was seen more instrumenttally in the unnstable
condition compared to th
he stable cond
dition. On thee other hand, when the stattement was m
made so
that the oth
her team could
d also hear it (intergroup
(
coondition), thee statement w
was believed too have less
of an instru
umental functiion in the unsstable than thee stable condiition. There w
were no differrences
between thee low status, stable
s
conditiions regardlesss of whether the statemennt was intergrooup or
intragroup. In this case, it was though
ht that the grooup had nothinng to lose whhether or not tthe other
d the statemen
nt. Within thee high status ccondition, theere were no diifferences in tthe
group heard
attribution of
o instrumenttal function reegardless of ccommunicatioon and stabilitty. With regarrd to the
identity-exp
pressive functtion of the staatement, Scheeepers and coolleagues (20006) found a siignificant
interaction between statu
us of the grou
up and the stabbility of the ssituation. Withhin the stablee
conditions, it was believ
ved that the staatement madee by the high status group served more of an
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 23
iddentity-expresssive function
n than when th
he statement was
w made by a member off the low statuus
grroup. This diffference was not
n significan
nt within the unstable
u
condditions.
Sccheepers et all.’s (2006) seccond study sh
howed that ingroup bias seerved an identtity-expressivve
fuunction among stable, high
h status group
ps. It further sh
howed that w
within unstablee, low status
grroups, ingrou
up favouritism
m as an instrum
mental functio
on was more likely to be m
manifest whenn the
auudience was the
t ingroup on
nly. Expressin
ng ingroup biias instrumenntally in front of the outgrooup was
onnly likely witthin low status groups for whom
w
this staatus was perceeived to be sttable, since thhey had
noothing to losee by alerting the
t outgroup of
o their attem
mpts to improvve their positiion. In unstable
seettings, low sttatus groups are
a wise to mo
obilize with stealth,
s
when attempting too move beyonnd the
exxisting status structure.
Foollowing the procedures off the first stud
dy, the third study
s
conductted by Scheeppers et al (20006)
asssessed the in
nteraction betw
ween stability
y (stable vs. unstable)
u
and status (low vss. high) on inngroup
biias. However, by making participants
p
ostensibly justtify their resouurce allocatioons to either inngroup
m
members or bo
oth ingroup an
nd outgroup members
m
(inteergroup conteext), this studyy also assesseed
coommunication
n context. Un
nlike the first study, participants were allso asked to ccomplete a serries of
otther measuress, including:
x
x
x
x
generaal indicator off instrumentall function: wiillingness to innvest effort inn the second rround
(2 item
ms)
generaal indicator off identity-exprressive functiion: Private sccale of Luhtaanen and Croccker’s
(1992)) Collective Self-esteem
S
Sccale (PCSE; cited
c
in Scheeepers et al, 20006) (4 items))
expliciit measure off material ingrroup bias: 5 ittems – 3 meassured instrum
mental functioon, 2
measu
ured identity-eexpressive fun
nction
expliciit measure off symbolic ing
group bias: 5 items
i
– 3 meaasured instrum
mental functioon, 2
measu
ured identity-eexpressive fun
nction
B
By using 2 (co
ommunication
n context: intrragroup vs. in
ntergroup) × 2 (status: low vs. high) × 2
(sstability: stablle vs. unstablee) ANOVAS and MANOV
VAS, Scheepeers et al. founnd that there w
was a
thhree-way interraction when assessing thee MIP strategy
y. Specificallyy, within the intragroup
coondition, thosse in the low status
s
group who
w were in the
t unstable ccondition scorred higher on the
M
MIP than did the low status participants in
i the stable condition.
c
Thhere were no ddifferences,
hoowever, betw
ween the low status,
s
stable participants
p
and
a the low sttatus, unstablee participants in the
inntergroup con
ndition. Furtheer, there weree no effects fo
or stability or communicatiion within thee high
sttatus participaants. For the more
m
aggressiive, MD strategy, there waas an interactiion between sstatus
annd stability su
uch that particcipants in the stable, low sttatus conditioon used this sttrategy signifficantly
m
more than did those in the unstable,
u
low status conditiion. There waas no such diffference betw
ween the
sttable and unsttable high stattus participan
nts. An assesssment of the m
measure of syymbolic ingroup bias
t
was a siignificant inteeraction betweeen status andd stability. W
Within the stabble
coonditions, parrticipants in th
he high statuss group displaayed more sym
mbolic ingrouup bias than ddid the
loow status partticipants. Thiss difference between low and
a high statuus groups wass not evident iin the
unnstable condition.
Sccheepers et all. (2006) also found a significant main effect
e
of statuus for the meaasure of the
innstrumental fu
unction of thee material ingrroup bias as well
w as the wiillingness to iinvest effort, aand the
iddentity-expresssive function
n of the symbo
olic ingroup bias.
b
Participaants in the low
w status conddition
w
were more likeely than high status particip
pants to indiccate that they used materiall ingroup biass for its
innstrumental fu
unction and to
o indicate thatt they would be willing to exert more efffort in the seecond
roound. Conversely, participaants in the hig
gh status cond
dition were m
more likely thaan their low sstatus
Paage 24
Humanssystems®
counterpartts to indicate that
t they had used symbollic ingroup biaas for its idenntity-expressivve
function.
nificant interacction betweenn status and sstability on thee measure of collective
Finally, theere was a sign
self-esteem
m, an indicatorr of the identity-expressivee function of iingroup bias. While there w
was no
difference between
b
partiicipants in thee unstable connditions regarrdless of statuus, Scheepers et al.’s
(2006) participants in the stable condition who were part of the high status ggroup scored
significantlly higher than
n their stable, low status coounterparts.
In addition to all of the above
a
analysees for study 3 , Scheepers aand colleagues (2006) condducted a
multisample path analyssis to assess th
he different rooutes from thee functions off ingroup biass to the
expression of ingroup biias (structurall equation moodel depicted in Figure 4).
n different ffunctions an
Figure 4. Relationshiips between
nd forms off ingroup bias, selfa effort in
n Experimen
nt 3. Standa
ardized coeffficients are
e expressed
d along
esteem, and
the lines (low
(
status//high status
s); those in bold are significant att p < .05. Id =
identity- expressive
e
function;
f
In
nst = instrum
mental func
ction; PCSE
E = Private s
subscale
of Collecttive Self-Estteem Scale; MIP = max
ximum ingro
oup profit; MJP = max
ximum
joint profiit; MD = maximum diffe
erentiation.. (Scheeperrs et al., 200
06, p. 954)
They found
d that the mod
del representin
ng the path frrom identity-eexpression to self-esteem w
was
stronger wiithin the high status particiipants and thaat this path waas mediated bby symbolic inngroup
bias. On thee other hand, the pathwayss from the insstrumental funnction of ingrroup bias to M
MIP and
effort were stronger for low
l status parrticipants thann for high staatus participannts.
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 25
The final study
y conducted by
b Scheepers et al (2006) assessed
a
ingrooup bias usingg a 2 (group sstatus:
loow vs. high) × 2 (stability: unstable vs. stable)
s
× 2 (fo
orm of ingrouup bias: materrial vs. symboolic)
m
mixed model design
d
with reepeated measu
ures on the laast factor. Thee procedures m
mirrored thosse of
sttudies 1 and 3.
3 Symbolic in
ngroup bias, as
a with material ingroup biias, was meassured using T
Tajfel
m
matrices. For the symbolic ingroup
i
bias, the matrices were used to allocate poinnts to other
paarticipants. It was stressed to participan
nts that these points
p
had “noo value in thee estimation
coompetition”. The
T pull scores of the various ingroup and
a outgroup matrices resuulted in four ffactors
(m
material MD, symbolic MD
D, material MIP,
M and symb
bolic MIP). A
An ANOVA conducted on the
M
MD scores ind
dicated that th
here was a sign
nificant threee-way interacttion between status, stabiliity and
foorm of ingrou
up bias. When
n assessing thee material ing
group bias, paarticipants in tthe stable, low
w
sttatus condition scored high
her on the MD
D measure thaan did particippants in the uunstable, low sstatus
coondition. There was no succh difference among particcipants in the high status coondition. When
asssessing the teendency to usse MD with sy
ymbolic ingro
oup bias, the researchers fo
found that
paarticipants in the stable, high status con
ndition scored
d higher than ddid participannts in the stabble, low
sttatus condition. There was no such diffeerence among
g participants in the unstabble conditions. A
siimilar ANOV
VA conducted on the MIP scores
s
showed
d no significaant main effeccts or interacttions.
Sccheepers and his colleaguees (2006) fourr studies indiccated that inggroup bias waas not always the
saame thing tim
me and again. Rather, the fo
orm and functtion differed, and this depeended largelyy on the
coontext in whicch it was foun
nd. They foun
nd that abstracct, symbolic iingroup bias iis used most bby
hiigh status gro
oups for whom
m this status is stable. Partiicipants strovve for maximuum ingroup prrofit in
unnstable, low status
s
groups,, especially when
w
this was done anonym
mously or in fr
front of other
inngroup memb
bers. Moreoveer, the more harsh
h
form of ingroup bias,, maximum diifferentiation, was
foound most oftten among low
w status group
ps for whom this status waas stable, perhhaps because they
haad nothing to lose by trying a radical strrategy even iff that strategyy would be knnown to the hiigh
sttatus group. Symbolic
S
ingrroup bias serv
ved an identity
y-expressive ffunction whille material inggroup
biias served an instrumental function. Thee functional use
u of ingroupp bias varies aaccording to ccontext
annd group mottive. In cases where
w
low staatus groups seee the existin g status quo aas unstable, inngroup
faavouritism can
n be construeed as a call forr social mobillization (com
mpetition). At the same timee,
Sccheepers et all. argue that in
ngroup favou
uritism serves a social mobbilization funcction in stablee
coonditions too,, given that th
he low status groups
g
have nothing
n
to losse and make ssalient their
m
mobilization sttrategy.
Table 4, summ
marizes the ressearch pertain
ning to the im
mpact of stabillity on identityy managemennt
sttrategies.
Paage 26
Humanssystems®
Table 4. Summary
S
off identity managementt strategies in respons
se to socios
structural
stab
bility
Reference
Outccome
Managemennt strategy
Nadler & Halabbi (2006)
Ͳ Loow status, high ideentifiers are less w
willing to accept heelp from high status
meembers and negattively perceive higgh status memberss who offer
deependency-orienteed help under unsttable conditions.
Ͳ Loow status members challenge statuss relations by refussing help while
higgh status memberrs try to maintain thheir position by offfering
deependency-orienteed help.
Social competition
Nadler, HarpazzGorodeisky, & BenB
David (2009)
Ͳ Higgh status, high ideentifiers maintain ppositive distinctiveeness by offering
deependency-orienteed (defensive) helpp to low status meembers regardlesss
of whether or not heelp is needed espeecially when statuss relations are
unnstable.
Ͳ When members of a high status groupp think about an iddentity they have in
coommon with low status members, theey are more likelyy to offer autonomyyoriiented than depenndency-oriented (ddefensive) help.
Defensive heelping (Social
competition)
Scheepers (20009)
Ͳ Loow status groups experienced
e
a stabble status as threaatening, as
evvidenced by lower cardiovascular re activity and higher vascular
ressistance.
Ͳ Unnstable status wass perceived by low
w status groups ass a challenge, as
evvidenced by higherr cardiovascular reeactivity and lower vascular
ressistance.
Ͳ Higgh status groups experienced
e
an unnstable status as tthreatening, as
evvidenced by lower cardiovascular re activity and higher vascular
ressistance.
Functional cooping
Scheepers & Ellemers
(2005)
Ͳ Loow status group members felt threattened (higher bloood pressure) by thee
staatus quo (stable situation) whereas high status groupp members felt
thrreatened by statuss loss (unstable siituation).
Ͳ Thhis was only true foor those who weree highly identified with their group.
Ͳ Loow status group members reported lless collective selff-esteem than highh
staatus members thoough personal self--esteem was unafffected.
Individualizaation
(Individual m
mobility)
Scheepers, Elleemers, &
Sintemaartensddijk
(2009)
m
experiencce unstable statuss as more stressfuul
Ͳ Higgh status group members
(ass measured by systolic blood press ure and pulse preessure) and are
moore upset and hosstile than stable staatus.
Ͳ Higgh status group members
m
experiencce an unstable staatus as particularlyy
thrreatening when low
w status group meembers are prese nt.
Ͳ In unstable situationns, both high and l ow status group m
members are moree
strrategic about theirr responses that m
might be interpreteed as ingroup bias
in intergroup situatioons.
Ingroup biass (Social
competition)
Scheepers, Speears,
Doosje, & Mansstead
(2006)
Ͳ Inggroup bias served an identity-expresssive function for high status groups
paarticularly when thaat status was stabble.
Ͳ Inggroup bias served an instrumental ffunction for low staatus groups and
toook a more aggresssive form when thee status was stab le.
Ͳ When the status is unstable,
u
low statuus group memberss use ingroup biass
to serve an instrumeental function onlyy in intragroup situuations whereas
s
they will usee ingroup bias to sserve an
whhen the status is stable,
insstrumental functionn in either intragrooup or intergroup ssituations.
Social competition/
Realistic com
mpetition,
ingroup bias (Social
competition)
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 27
4
4.2
Legittimacy an
nd Identity
y Managem
ment Strattegies
There is some research look
king at percep
ptions of the sociostructura
s
al belief of leggitimacy, andd how
thhis leads to vaarious identity
y managemen
nt strategies. Schmader,
S
Maajor, Ecclestoon, and McCooy
(22001) examin
ned a social crreativity identtity managem
ment strategy, devaluing or selective devvaluing.
U
Understood as “a process off reducing thee perceived im
mportance of a domain in aan effort to prrotect
onneself againstt negative outtcomes” resullting from a social compariison in that ddomain (Schm
mader,
M
Major, Ecclestton, & McCoy
y, 2001, p. 78
82), individuaals may engagge they state inn selective
deevaluing. Seleective devaluing essentiallly shifts the dimension of ccomparison too protect the ggroup
iddentity and self-esteem from
m a negative comparison to
t an outgroupp. Schmader and colleaguees
arrgue that devaaluing a domaain is influencced by group status and peerceived legitiimacy of the
inntergroup com
mparisons. Ho
owever, they also
a argue thaat willingnesss to devalue a domain depeends on
hoow much peo
ople value the given domain, and how much
m
knowleddge they havee regarding whho
exxcels in that domain.
d
B
Based on previious research (Jost & Banaaji, 1994; citeed in Schmadeer et al., 20011), Schmader and
coolleagues (2001) work from
m the assump
ption that peop
ple perceive sstatus differennces as legitim
mate
unnless they aree given inform
mation to sugg
gest otherwisee. Referred too as status vallue asymmetry
ry,
w
when differencces are perceived as legitim
mate, individu
uals from highh status groupps place less vvalue
onn domains in which low sttatus groups excel,
e
and putt higher valuee on domains in which highh status
grroups excel in
n comparison. However, when
w
differencces are perceiived as illegittimate, individduals
arre expected to
o devalue dom
mains in whicch their ingrou
up is outperfoormed by a hiigher status
ouutgroup. In th
his way, perceeived legitimaacy moderatess when indiviiduals devaluue a domain.
Scchmader et all. (2001) hypo
othesized thatt status value asymmetry iss mediated byy people’s
peerceptions of how useful th
he domain is for gaining reewards that arre relevant to their status. L
Low
sttatus groups may
m be likely to value dom
mains in which
h a high statuus outgroup exxcels becausee they
beelieve that if they
t
do well in
i those domaains, they willl be able to reeap the rewarrds enjoyed byy the
hiigh status outtgroup membeers. These domains are hig
gh in expectedd utility. Dom
mains where thhe low
sttatus group ex
xcels, individu
uals may be less
l likely to see
s those as im
mportant because they are
peerceived to bee low in expected utility. Schmader
S
et al.
a expected thhat when statuus differencess are
leegitimate, individuals’ percceived utility of domains sh
hould be baseed on who exxcels in that doomain,
buut they should
d rely less on this knowled
dge when statu
us differencess are illegitim
mate. In the laatter
caase, individuaals would be free
f to devalu
ue the domain
ns in which thheir ingroup pperforms poorrly
coompared to th
he higher statu
us outgroup.
Scchmader et all. (2001) cond
ducted three studies
s
that ex
xamined selecctive devaluinng among higgh and
loow status grou
up members. In all three sttudies, participants compleeted a test thatt measured a
fictitious positiive personalitty trait called surgency2 an
nd received grroup feedbackk indicating thhat
thheir group had
d done either better or worrse than an ou
utgroup on thiis trait. Studiees 1 and 2 useed a 2
(rrelative group
p status: high or low) × 2 (g
group feedbacck: ingroup suuccess or outggroup success)
beetween-subjects design. In
n Study 1, diffferences in staatus were creaated by askinng participantss to
coompare students’ personaliity scores from
m their own school
s
(UCSB
B) to those at a local city ccollege
(lower in status) or Stanford
d University (higher
(
in stattus). While sttudents were w
waiting to seee how
thheir group sco
ored on the peersonality testt, they were given
g
a data shheet showing differences
beetween their own
o group an
nd the outgrou
up in domainss such as incoome and careeer advancemeent to
2
P
Participants were never providedd with a specific definition of surrgency, and weree only told that itt is a positive peersonality
traait.
Paage 28
Humanssystems®
reinforce sttatus differencces. Participants then receiived feedbackk about how ttheir own grouup scored
relative to the
t outgroup and
a were told
d that their personal score w
was not incluuded in the grooup score.
In the ingro
oup success co
ondition (den
noting outgrouup failure), paarticipants weere told that thhe average
for their un
niversity was 72.5
7 and for the
t comparisoon university was 34.5. In the outgroup success
condition (d
denoting ingrroup failure), the scores weere reversed ssuch that theirr own universsity had
scored 34.5
5, whereas thee comparison university haad scored 72.55.
Schmader et
e al.’s (2001)) participants then respondded to three iteems exploringg the extent too which
they valued
d the surgency
y trait. Participants also annswered items about their pperceived utility of the
surgency trrait as status-rrelevant (for achieving
a
careeer success) aand as status-irrelevant (foor
achieving social
s
success). Three item
ms assessed car
areer utility annd three itemss assessed soccial utility.
Participantss also indicateed how they defined
d
the doomain of surggency by ratinng what traits
individuals are likely to have in conju
unction with ssurgency, succh as competeence (e.g., inteelligent,
ocial warmth (e.g., sociablle, friendly). T
They measureed self-appraiisals of surgenncy on
lazy) and so
three items. These two measures
m
weree used to test alternative exxplanations too perceived uutility as a
mediator fo
or the status value
v
asymmeetry. Schmadeer et al. then aadministered m
manipulationn checks
for group feeedback and group
g
status, which were eeffective. Finaally, they asseessed particippants’
perceived leegitimacy of status differences betweenn groups on thhree items (e.g., “Do you bbelieve
that it is acccurate or inacccurate to say that Stanfordd [or UCSB] rreally is superior to UCSB
B [or City
College]?”)).
Results sup
pported the sta
atus value asyymmetry accoount. Consisteent with Schm
mader et al.’s (2001)
predictions, there was a significant in
nteraction betw
ween group status and grouup feedback oon how
much particcipants valued
d the domain of surgency ((see Figure 5)).
Figure 5. The status value asym
mmetry show
wn with gro
oup based o
on school a
affiliation
in Study 1. (Schmade
er et al., 200
01, p. 786)
s
conditio
on valued thee domain signnificantly morre when their ingroup
Participantss in the high status
scored high
her than the lo
ower status grroup compareed to when thee outgroup sccored higher tthan the
ingroup. Ho
owever, when
n participants were in the llow status conndition, there was no differrence
between ho
ow much they
y valued the domain
d
based on how their ingroup scorred relative too the
outgroup. No
N other signiificant effectss were found. Further analyyses testing thhe effects of sstatus
within grou
up feedback conditions sho
owed that in thhe ingroup suuccess conditiion, both highh and low
status group
ps valued the domain equaally. In the ouutgroup success condition ((or ingroup faailure
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 29
coondition), parrticipants in th
he high statuss condition peerceived the ddomain as signnificantly lesss
im
mportant than
n did those in the low statuss condition. Results
R
also shhowed an inteeraction betw
ween
grroup status an
nd group feed
dback for statu
us-relevant uttility of the doomain. No maain effects weere
foound. The dom
main was percceived as morre useful for gaining
g
careeer success wheen UCSB scoored
hiigher than Citty College, bu
ut not when City
C College scored
s
higher than UCSB. Similarly,
peerceived utilitty for surgenccy was higherr when Stanfo
ord scored higgher than UCSB, but not w
when
U
UCSB scored higher
h
than Stanford. Med
diational analy
yses followingg the Baron aand Kenny (19986;
ciited in Schmaader et al.) meethod showed
d that perceiveed career utiliity mediated tthe value statuus
assymmetry on personal valu
ue of the dom
main. For statu
us-irrelevant uutility, there w
was only a maain
efffect of group
p feedback succh that when participants’ ingroup scoreed higher thaan the comparrison
grroup, they vallued the domaain more relevant to when they scored llower.
Scchmader et all. (2001) cond
ducted two fo
ollow on studiies. For Studyy 2, rather thaan using groupps that
w
were situationaally constructted, they used
d gender as staatus differencce as it tends tto be chronic and
m
more salient. The
T findings in Study 2 rep
plicated those in Study 1. Inn Study 3, Scchmader and
coolleagues used a similar deesign as in thee previous two studies but also manipullated the legittimacy
off group statuss differences and
a groups were
w based on school affiliaation (as in Sttudy 1). The ddesign
w
was a 2 (group
p status: high vs.
v low) × 2 (group
(
feedbaack: ingroup ssuccess vs. ouutgroup succeess) × 2
(legitimacy of group status: legitimate vss. illegitimate) between-subbjects designn. As in the prrevious
sttudies, before participants found out how
w their group
p scored on thhe surgency peersonality test, they
w
were given a data
d sheet desccribing how their
t
group differed from thhe comparisoon group. How
wever,
atttached to the data sheet was also a fictiitious research
h article that eelaborated onn the details
m
mentioned in th
he data sheet.. In the illegittimacy condittion, the reseaarch suggested that studentts at
thhe two schools are equivaleent in both their academic and intelligennce potential,, whereas in thhe
leegitimacy con
ndition, studen
nts at the high
her status scho
ool have betteer academic aand intelligennce
pootential than those
t
at the lo
ower status scchool. Resultss showed thatt all three mannipulations w
were
efffective.
Scchmader et all. (2001) pred
dicted that thee value status asymmetry w
would be elim
minated when
inndividuals recceived inform
mation that stattus differencees were illegittimate. A maiin effect of grroup
feeedback was observed,
o
butt this effect was
w qualified by
b the significcant three-waay interaction,, as
shhown in Figurre 6.
Figure 6. Status
S
illeg
gitimacy mo
oderates the
e status valu
ue asymme
etry in Study
y 3.
(Sch
hmader et al., p. 792)
Paage 30
Humanssystems®
When statu
us differences were perceiv
ved as legitim
mate, the statuss value symm
metry is observved
consistent with
w Studies 1 and 2. However, when sttatus differencces were percceived as illeggitimate,
the status value
v
symmetrry is eliminated. Specificallly, participannts in the low
w status condittion
valued the surgency
s
dom
main less when they scoredd lower than tthe outgroup ccompared to w
when they
scored high
her than the ou
utgroup. Partiicipants in thee high status condition vallued the domaain equally
regardless of
o whether theeir ingroup orr the outgroupp scored highher on the dim
mension. No oother
significant effects were observed.
o
howed a signiificant main eeffect of Statuus Legitimacyy and a
Further anaalysis on expeected utility sh
significant Group Statuss × Group Feeedback interacction, both quualified by a ssignificant thrree-way
interaction. Schmader ett al.’s (2001) results
r
lookinng at perceiveed utility repliicated the finddings from
Study 1 in the
t legitimacy
y condition. Participants
P
inn the higher status conditioon perceived tthe
domain to be
b more usefu
ul for career success
s
compaared to those in the lower status conditiion. When
participantss were in the low
l status con
ndition, they perceived greeater utility inn the domain for career
success when the higherr status schooll scored higheer on the traitt than their ow
wn school. In contrast,
when statuss was perceived as illegitim
mate, there waas only a maiin effect of grroup status. The
perceived utility
u
of surgeency for careeer success waas higher for pparticipants inn the high staatus
compared to the low stattus condition.. Mediationall analyses shoowed that percceived career utility
significantlly mediated th
he effects of status,
s
feedbaack, and legitiimacy on valuuing the domaain. No
significant effects were found
f
for the social utility of surgency.
gs from Schm
mader et al.’s (2001)
(
studiess suggest thatt it is importaant to considerr both
The finding
group status and percepttions of the leegitimacy of th
that status on devaluing proocesses. Indivviduals
from low sttatus groups do
d not alwayss devalue dom
mains in whichh their ingrouup performs ppoorly
relative to a high status group.
g
Ratherr, there is eviddence that theey devalue doomains when there is
reason to beelieve that staatus differences are illegiti mate, and thiis can be consstrued as a soccial
creative meeans to manag
ge a negative identity. Highh status groupps are also inffluenced by sstatus
legitimacy. Members fro
om high status groups tendd to devalue a domain when status differrences are
legitimate and
a when they
y do worse in
n the domain tthan a lower status group. This suggests that high
status group
p members vaalue another domain
d
as a sstrategy to maaintain the exiisting social sstatus,
when it mig
ght be in jeop
pardy.
In a field sttudy, Dumontt and van Lill (2009) consiidered the imppact of percepptions of statuus
legitimacy and identity management
m
strategies
s
for dominant annd non-dominaant groups. Past
research haas shown that dominant gro
oup members try to maintaain their groupp’s position bby using
group-levell strategies an
nd resort to in
ndividual-leveel strategies w
when it seems likely that thheir group
will lose their social adv
vantage (e.g., Bettencourt eet al., 2001). F
For members of non-dominant
groups, on the other han
nd, they usuallly prefer an inndividual mobbility strategyy, unless it is
impossible for them to use
u this strateg
gy such as whhen group bouundaries are iimpermeable (e.g.,
Ellemers ett al., 1988, citted in Dumon
nt and van Lil l, 2009). How
wever, if statuus relations arre viewed
as insecure (i.e., illegitim
mate and unsttable), membeers of the highh status groupp would be unnlikely to
use group-llevel strategiees to maintain
n their social pposition.
Dumont and van Lill (20
009) predicted
d that under innsecure condditions, dominnant group meembers
would show
w less ingroup
p identificatio
on and be lesss likely to act collectively tto preserve thheir social
position. In
n contrast, non
n-dominant grroup memberrs should show
w more ingrooup identificattion and
be more lik
kely to collecttively mobilizze (i.e., sociall competition)) to improve ttheir social sttanding
when statuss relations aree insecure. Co
onsidering ressearch by Nieens and Cairns (2003; citedd in
Dumont and van Lill), Dumont
D
and van
v Lill also ppredicted that ingroup idenntification shoould be
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 31
poositively asso
ociated with more
m
use of co
ollective strategies and neggatively assocciated with thhe use
off individual sttrategies regaardless of indiividuals’ statu
us position.
To test their hy
ypotheses, Du
umont and van
n Lill (2009) conducted a field study inn South Africaa,
foollowing the first
f
democrattic elections in 1994, i.e., the
t first time tthe black majjority gained
poolitical powerr.3 According
g to Gibson an
nd Gouws (19
999; cited in D
Dumont and vvan Lill), raciial
grroups in Soutth Africa are highly
h
salientt categories an
nd people stroongly identifyy with them.
Paarticipants in Dumont and van Lill’s fieeld study weree 300 studentts, each membbers of one off the
thhree racial gro
oups (white, black,
b
and colloured). Each group had 1000 members. The field studdy
ussed a 3 (Raciaal Group: Wh
hite vs. Black vs. Coloured
d) × 2 (Compaarison Group:: one of the tw
wo
raacial groups to
o which participants did no
ot belong) bettween-subjecct design. Partticipants first
inndicated their perceptions of
o the transforrmation proceess and their eeconomic staatus position. Then
paarticipants ind
dicated their perceptions
p
of
o legitimacy, stability, andd level of ingrroup identification.
N
Next, participaants indicated their level off agreement with
w items asssessing four iddentity managgement
sttrategies, as fo
ollows:
x
x
x
x
social competition (e.g.,
(
“Ingrou
up people shou
uld demonstraate that they aare the more
successsful group in terms of econ
nomic status””),
outgro
oup favouritism
m (e.g., “If neew jobs arise in the next feew years, ingrroup people w
will
make sure
s
that thesee jobs will bee filled with outgroup peopple rather thann with ingroupp
peoplee”),
individ
dualization (ee.g., “I regard myself as a single
s
person rather than ass a member oof a
certain
n group of peo
ople”), and
supero
ordinate recateegorization (ee.g., “I consid
der myself as South African
an” and “I connsider
myselff as black/white/coloured” score based on
o differencee between thesse two items)).
R
Results showed
d that White group
g
membeers considered
d their ingrouup as the curreent dominant group,
w
whereas memb
bers of the Co
oloured and Black
B
groups considered
c
theeir ingroup ass the current nnondoominant grou
up relative to the
t compariso
ons. As such, members of bboth Coloureed and Black ggroups
inn South Africaa were consid
dered non-dom
minant. For th
he dominant W
White group m
member, percceived
illlegitimacy off economic staatus was asso
ociated with a decrease in iingroup identiification. Thee
oppposite was trrue for non-dominant grou
up members. When
W
they viiewed the stattus structure aas
illlegitimate, th
hey reported in
ncreased iden
ntification witth their groupp.
D
Dumont and vaan Lill (2009)) also found systematic
s
diffferences betw
ween the dom
minant and nonndoominant grou
ups in terms of the choice of
o identity straategies they sselected to maanage
soociostructurall beliefs. For dominant
d
gro
oup members, perceived leggitimacy posiitively prediccted
soocial competition strategies (demonstratting their prow
wess) and neggatively predicted outgrouup
faavouritism (m
maintaining the social orderr); whereas illlegitimacy waas associated with less inggroup
iddentification. The opposite was found fo
or non-domin
nant groups, i..e., illegitimaccy was associiated
w
with greater no
on-dominant ingroup
i
identtification. Alsso, for South A
African Blackks, perceived
leegitimacy possitively prediccted outgroup favouritism. Legitimacy ddid not predicct the choice oof
sttrategies for th
he Coloured racial
r
group. And
A across alll three raciall groups, theree was a signifficant
neegative correllation between ingroup ideentification an
nd the use of iindividual-levvel strategies (i.e.,
inndividualization and supero
ordinate recattegorization). For dominannt group mem
mbers, a positiive
coorrelation between ingroup
p identificatio
on and social competition,
c
a collective sstrategy, was shown.
3
A
At the time, the government’s
g
main priority was to
t initiate a transsformation proceess to establish social and economic
eqquality among thhe racial groups to
t form a non-raacial society (Alexander, 1999; ccited in Dumont aand van Lill, 20009).
Paage 32
Humanssystems®
Based on Dumont
D
and van Lill’s find
dings, it is safee to argue thaat ingroup ideentification results in
less individ
dual strategiess (in their casee, individualiization and suuperordinate ccategorizationn) and
more collecctive action.
Another div
visive politicaal context to understand
u
iddentity managgement strateggies for dominnant and
non-dominaant groups is Northern Irelland. In short,, the conflict in Northern IIreland comprrised
individuals who wanted to remain a part
p of the Unnited Kingdom
m (Protestantss) and those w
who
wanted to be
b integrated with
w the Repu
ublic of Irelannd (Catholics). Most peoplle in Northernn Ireland
identify eith
her as a Catho
olic or Protestant (Cairns & Darby, 19998; cited in Niiens & Cairnss, 2002),
and categorrize other cou
untrymen as belonging
b
to oone of those tw
wo denominaations (Cairnss, 1980;
cited in Nieens & Cairns)). The politicaal situation thhroughout the 1970s, 80s annd early 90s w
was
viewed as illegitimate (aand hence unsstable) mainlyy by the Cathoolic communnity, which proovoked a
wave of soccial unrest and paramilitary
y violence (soocial competiition). The Protestants had largely
maintained political and social domin
nance in Northhern Ireland, at the expensse of the Com
mmunity
(e.g., Cairn
ns & Mercer, 1984;
1
cited in
n Niens & Caiirns). “The Trroubles”, as tthey were callled, was
essentially a collective action
a
arising from a desiree to change thhe disparate coonstitutional rights and
treatment of
o the Catholicc communitiees across Nortthern Ireland,, and separatee from Great B
Britain.
Political an
nd military hostilities ended
d with the Goood Friday Peeace Accord 11998. This ressulted in a
cessation off sectarian vio
olence, param
military disarm
mament, and sshared politiccal power. Deespite the
social and political
p
changes, there rem
mains today a smattering oof political vioolence.
Niens and Cairns
C
(2002)) developed sccales to meassure different identity manaagement strattegies
based on th
he political context in North
hern Ireland aand examinedd the relationss with severall
sociostructu
ural variabless, including peerceptions off legitimacy annd stability, aas well as percceptions
of ingroup identification
n. They argued
d that the Prootestant comm
munity (dominnant group) m
may view
the current political situaation as illegiitimate and unnstable as a coonsequence oof greater poliitical and
social engagement of thee Catholic com
mmunity. Forr obvious reassons, social iddentities will be
particularly
y salient in inttergroup confflicts like thatt witnessed inn Northern Ireeland over thee last 4
decades. An
nd Niens and Cairns (2002
2) identified ffive particularr identity mannagement straategies
most relevaant to this con
ntext, includin
ng:
x
x
x
x
x
ind
dividualization
n (e.g., “If som
meone attackks my commuunity, I usuallyy do not take it
perrsonally”),
soccial competitio
on (e.g., “I want
w my comm
munity to dem
monstrate that it is the supeerior one”),
chaange of comparison dimensions (e.g., “F
For my comm
munity, there aare more impportant
com
mparisons witth the other co
ommunity thaan having moore political innfluence”),
tem
mporal compaarisons (“For my
m communiity, it is most important to compare its ssituation
tod
day with its sittuation 2 yearrs ago”), and
sup
perordinate reecategorization (e.g., “Firstt and foremosst, I regard myyself as Europpean
rath
her than as a member
m
of my
m denominatiional communnity”).
Like Dumo
ont and van Liill (2009), ind
dividuation annd superordinnate recategorrization are coonsidered
individual strategies
s
for managing ideentity, whereaas social com
mpetition, channge of compaarison
dimensionss, and temporaal comparison
ns are consideered collectivve strategies, tthe latter two falling
under sociaal creativity.
Participantss, both Protesstant or Catho
olic, were giveen a questionnnaire that assessed their peerceptions
of the legitiimacy and staability of the situation,
s
leveel of ingroup identificationn (from Brow
wn, Condor,
Mathews, Wade,
W
& Willliams, 1986; cited
c
in Nienss & Cairns, 20002), and the use of speciffic identity
managemen
nt strategies. Niens
N
and Caairns found thhat stronger inngroup identiffication was aassociated
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 33
w
with more sociial competitio
on as well as diminished
d
in
ndividualizatioon and superoordinate
reecategorizatio
on. However, they also fou
und that greateer perceived llegitimacy waas associated with
leess ingroup id
dentification, less
l social competition, an
nd more indiv idualization. And these rellations
am
mong the variiables remain
ned the same when
w
Protestaants and Cathholics were exxamined separrately,
exxcept for percceptions of staability. For Prrotestants, mo
ore stability w
was associatedd with less ingroup
iddentification and
a more indiividualization
n. In contrast, for Catholicss, more stabiliity was assocciated
w
with somewhat more ingrou
up identificatiion, but was not
n associatedd with individdualization.
Fuurther analysees showed thaat Catholics perceived
p
the situation in N
Northern Irelaand as less
leegitimate and more stable, reporting greeater ingroup identification
i
n than did Prootestants (Nienns &
C
Cairns, 2002). This suggests that, despitee the strides made
m
since thee Good Fridaay Peace Accoord, the
siituation in No
orthern Ireland
d may not be fully resolved
d in the eyes of the Cathollic communityy. To
m
manage the ten
nuous situatio
on, it may be that
t the non-d
dominant grouup strongly iddentifies withh their
grroup as an ideentity manageement strategy
y, since accorrding to Nienns and Cairns’’ study no
diifferences weere found betw
ween the two groups when it came to iddentity managgement strateggies.
Inndeed, althoug
gh perception
ns of legitimacy, stability, and
a ingroup iidentification were expecteed to
coorrelate with all of the man
nagement straategies, this was
w not the ca se. Specificallly, change off
coomparison dim
mensions and
d temporal com
mparisons weere not relatedd to any of thhe variables inn the
sttudy, and as such may be related
r
to otheer concepts no
ot measured hhere. Howeveer, the social iidentity
vaariables were correlated with individuall strategies (i..e., individuallization and ssuperordinate
reecategorizatio
on) and one co
ollective strattegy (i.e., sociial competitioon). Niens andd Cairns sugggest
thhat social iden
ntity theory may
m be better at
a explaining individual ass opposed to ccollective idenntity
m
management sttrategies.
O
Ouwerkerk and
d Ellemers (2
2002) also con
nsidered the leegitimacy of the context or circumstancce of
soocial compariison, and how
w this influencces strategies to protect or bbolster sociall identity. Within
thhe process of social compaarison, they arrgued, people compare the circumstancees under whicch the
grroups perform
med, and thesee circumstancces can have an
a influence iif group mem
mbers attributee their
reelative successs or failure to
o the groups general
g
superiior or inferiorr ability, respeectively. In tuurn,
thhese judgments can influen
nce a group’s perception off the extent too which their ability on thee
peerformance dimension is leegitimate and
d stable, i.e., ju
ustified and uunlikely to chhange. Ouwerkkerk
annd Ellemers also
a predicted
d that these kin
nds of intergrroup comparissons would innfluence
inndividuals’ afffective and motivational
m
reesponses.
To test their hy
ypotheses, Ou
uwerkerk and Ellemers (20
002) examinedd people’s aff
ffective and
m
motivational reesponses to po
ositive or neg
gative intergro
oup comparissons and varieed their persoonal
coontribution ass well as the circumstances
c
s surrounding
g the outgroupp’s performannce. They used a 2
(C
Comparison: Favourable
F
vs. Unfavourab
ble) × 2 (Outg
group: disadvvantage vs. addvantage) × 2
(R
Responsibility
y: Low vs. Hiigh) between--subjects design. Ouwerkerrk and Ellemers’ participaants
first completed
d a modified dot
d estimation
n task (see Jettten, Spears, & Manstead, 1996; cited inn
O
Ouwerkerk and
d Ellemers) and were then allegedly cattegorized intoo one of two sstyles of perceeiving
(eeither “detaileed” or “globall” perceivers)). All participants were toldd that they weere “detailed””
peerceivers and that the purp
pose of the stu
udy was to compare the perrformance off the detailed aand
gllobal perceiveers on a “Group Recognition Word Task
k,” an anagraam task, which measures a
grroup’s ability
y to recognize words in an unusual
u
conteext quickly annd concurrenttly. They werre also
toold that the grroup’s perform
mance on the task can pred
dict their succcess within ann organizationnal
coontext.
A
After participaants completed
d the word task, participan
nts in the low responsibilityy condition w
were
toold that their personal
p
scoree could not bee included in their group’ss score due to a computer eerror.
Paage 34
Humanssystems®
In the high responsibilityy condition, participants
p
diid not receivee this messagee. Then the sccores for
both groupss were presen
nted to particip
pants. To mannipulate comp
mparison, the pperformance oof
participantss’ own group was held con
nstant, but in tthe unfavouraable comparisson conditionn, the
outgroup sccored 7 pointss higher, whereas in the favvourable com
mparison conddition, the outtgroup
scored 7 po
oints lower. To manipulate outgroup (diis)advantage ((legitimacy vvs. illegitimacyy),
participantss in the outgro
oup disadvan
ntage conditioon were told thhat the anagraams completeed by the
outgroup were
w more diffficult, whereaas those in thee outgroup addvantage conddition were toold that the
anagrams completed
c
by the outgroup were easier tthan the ones that their inggroup completted. This
essentially made the circcumstances un
nfair or illegittimate.
k and Ellemerss’ (2002) asseessed particippants’ affectivve responses to four negattive (e.g.,
Ouwerkerk
disappointm
ment, shame) and four posiitive emotionns (e.g., pride,, contentmentt) in response to their
group’s perrformance on the word task
k. Participantts were told thhat both the ddetailed and gllobal
perceiver groups would be given the opportunity
o
too improve theeir performannce on the woord task by
completing
g another 20 anagrams
a
and their motivattional responsses were thenn assessed on tthree
measures. First,
F
participaants’ collectiv
ve efficacy foor performancce improvemeent was measuured that
assessed thee magnitude and
a strength judgments
j
(m
modeled after self-efficacy scale –Banduura, 1977;
cited in Ouw
werkerk & Elllemers). Colllective efficaccy magnitudee assessed how
w much participants
believed thaat their group
p could improve on the taskk. They were presented wiith seven succcessively
higher scores (e.g., 69, 70,
7 71) and assked to indicaate whether thheir group cann attain that sccore (with
yes/no resp
ponses). Colleective efficacy
y strength asssessed particippants’ confideence that theiir group
can attain each
e
of the performance scores (scale froom 0 to 100). The second motivation m
measure
examined participants’
p
tendency to hiinder the futuure performannce of the outggroup. Particiipants
were told th
hat for the wo
ord task they would
w
be com
mpleting laterr, the difficultty level for haalf of them
would be seelected by thee computer, but the difficuulty level for tthe other halff would be selected by
the outgrou
up. Similarly, they would also
a be able too determine thhe difficulty llevel for half the
anagrams to
o be completeed by the outg
group. Difficuulty level for the anagramss range from w
words
with 5 to 8 letters, and th
he mean difficculty level fo r the 10 anaggrams served aas the measurre for their
tendency to
o hinder the ou
utgroup’s futu
ure performannce. Then, paarticipants didd the word tassk again.
Following this,
t
Ouwerkeerk and Ellem
mers had partiicipants answer the third m
motivation meeasure
which required them to report
r
their efffort on the seecond word taask by responnding to three
statements (e.g., “I was strongly
s
motiivated at the ssecond Groupp Word Recoggnition Task””). Finally,
participantss completed th
he manipulatiion check item
ms, which weere effective.
Results sho
owed that, for positive affect, there was a significant main effect ffor relative group
performancce and outgrou
up (dis)advan
ntage. Particippants experiennced more poositive affect w
when their
group perfo
ormed better than
t
the outgrroup and wheen the outgrouup was advanntaged rather tthan
disadvantag
ged. In additio
on, there was a significantt interaction bbetween relatiive group perfformance
and outgrou
up (dis)advan
ntage. When th
he comparisoon between thhe ingroup andd outgroup w
was
unfavourab
ble, participan
nts reported more
m
positive aaffect when thhey were com
mpared to an
advantaged
d versus a disaadvantaged ou
utgroup. Wheen the comparrison betweenn groups was
favourable, there were no
n differences in positive a ffect when thhe outgroup w
was advantageed or
disadvantag
ged. For negaative affect, main
m effects foor relative grooup performannce and outgrroup
(dis)advanttage were sign
nificant. Partiicipants show
wed less negattive affect folllowing a favoourable
versus unfaavourable com
mparison and when the outtgroup was addvantaged verrsus disadvanntaged. The
interaction between the relative
r
perfo
ormance and ooutgroup (dis))advantage w
was not signifiicant, but
showed a siimilar pattern
n as positive affect.
a
Participantss’ belief and confidence
c
th
hat their groupp’s performannce would impprove on the second
word task were
w aggregatted to form a composite meeasure of colllective efficaccy for perform
mance
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 35
im
mprovement. Results from Ouwerkerk and
a Ellemers (2002) showeed that there w
was a significcant
m
main effect forr relative grou
up performance, such that they
t
reportedd higher efficaacy for
im
mprovement after
a
an unfav
vourable ratheer than a favou
urable compaarison. There was also a
siignificant inteeraction betweeen relative group
g
perform
mance and outtgroup (dis)addvantage.
Sppecifically, when
w
the outgrroup was adv
vantaged, an unfavourable
u
comparison lled to stronger
coollective efficcacy beliefs fo
or doing betteer on the task compared to a favourable comparison, but no
diifferences weere observed when
w
the outg
group was disadvantaged. R
Responses fo r the self-repoort
m
measure of mo
otivation show
wed the same interaction paattern as the ccollective effi
ficacy measuree, and
noone of the maain effects weere significantt. Ouwerkerk and Ellemerss also showedd that collectivve
effficacy mediaated the interaaction between relative gro
oup performannce and outgrroup (dis)advantage
onn self-reporteed effort. It sh
hould be noted
d that there were
w no signifi
ficant effects ffor personal
reesponsibility, which is imp
portant to show
w that intergrroup comparissons elicit afffective and
m
motivation resp
ponses becau
use of their inffluence on ind
dividuals’ soccial identity.
Foor outgroup hindering,
h
Ou
uwerkerk and Ellemers (2002) found a ssignificant maain effect for
reelative group performance and outgroup
p (dis)advantaage. Participaants were morre likely to hinnder
thhe outgroup’s future perforrmance after an
a unfavourab
ble versus favvourable com
mparison and w
when
thhe outgroup had
h been advaantaged versuss disadvantag
ged. There waas also a signiificant interacction
beetween outgro
oup (dis)advaantage and personal respon
nsibility, indiccating that paarticipants in tthe
hiigh responsib
bility condition
n showed a greater
g
tenden
ncy to hinder tthe outgroup’’s performancce
w
when the outgrroup was advantaged vs. disadvantaged
d
d, but no diffeerences were oobserved in thhe low
reesponsibility condition.
c
Th
he interaction between relattive group peerformance annd outgroup
(ddis)advantagee was marginaally significan
nt, but the patttern parallelss the findings for the other two
m
motivation measures. Imporrtantly, outgro
oup hindering
g did not corrrelate with colllective efficaacy or
seelf-reported motivation.
m
O
Ouwerkerk and
d Ellemers’ (2
2002) study show
s
that wheen individualss compare theeir ingroup too an
addvantaged as opposed to a disadvantageed outgroup, they
t
experiennce more positive and less
neegative affecttive responsess. This impliees that there are potential bbenefits to beiing disadvanttaged
ass group ability
y comparison
ns can be percceived as unju
ustified in the particular cirrcumstance. B
Being a
diisadvantaged ingroup in illlegitimate con
ntexts may motivate
m
membbers to demonnstrate their aability
byy working harrder (social competition) when
w
their rellevant identityy dimensions are threateneed or
chhallenged, and there is an opportunity
o
to
o change the existing
e
statuus hierarchy. IIndeed, not onnly
w
would participants hinder th
he future perfformance of an
n outgroup affter doing woorse than the
ouutgroup on a task, but also when their group
g
had beeen previously disadvantageed. Ouwerkerkk and
Ellemers’ findiings, thereforre, suggest thaat construal of particular ddimensions (grroup task abillity)
w
will be impacteed by legitimacy judgemen
nts, and this may
m lead to soocial competiition in an efffort to
boolster or main
ntain social id
dentity.
C
Costarelli (201
12) looked at how
h individu
uals use sociall group attribuutions as a strrategy to mannage
thheir identity (ssocial creativity). The attriibutions that individuals
i
m
make to explaiin poor perforrmance
off their ingroup
p can help theem manage an
ny identity th
hreat associateed with this pperformance. IIf they
seee their group
p’s poor perfo
ormance as a product
p
of low
w effort, for eexample, this is likely to haave
leess negative im
mpact on theiir social identtity than if theey attribute thhe poor perforrmance to low
w
grroup ability, as
a ability seem
ms harder to change
c
than effort.
e
And Coostarelli thougght that this m
might
bee emphasized
d with high as opposed to low group ideentifiers. Speccifically, he hyypothesized tthat
hiigh group identifiers would
d be more likely to make low effort thann low ability attributions ffor
pooor group perrformance wh
hen the status differential iss illegitimate and unstablee in order to m
manage
iddentity threat and re-establiish positive affective
a
reacttions. Costareelli argued thaat, for low grooup
iddentifiers, poo
or group perfo
ormance was not expected to threaten soocial identityy, and thereforre, they
Paage 36
Humanssystems®
would not show
s
bias in their
t
attributio
ons. He manippulated levels of legitimaccy and identiffication
(individual vs. social/gro
oup) and used
d a continuouss measure of status stabilitty to predict ccausal
attributionss and positive affect. The design
d
was a 2 (Legitimacyy: low vs. higgh) × 2 (Selfcategorizatiion: individuaal vs. social/g
group) × contiinuous measuure of perceivved temporal sstability of
status between-subjects design.
udy were Italiaan secondaryy students. Inggroup and outtgroup
Participantss in Costarellii’s (2012) stu
status was emphasized
e
by
b highlightin
ng the differennces in curricuulum betweenn two types oof schools
in Italy (foccus on math and
a physics vss. focus on Laatin), and thiss was intended to promote the
perception that group bo
oundaries werre impermeabble. Self-categgorization wass manipulatedd by
asking\participants to lisst either six ad
djectives that described theem as “uniquee” individuals
(individual)) or as an ingrroup memberr (social). Leggitimacy of loow ingroup staatus was mannipulated
by telling participants
p
th
hat postsecond
dary academicc achievemennt for their grooup memberss tended to
be worse th
han outgroup members, and
d that this infformation wass either basedd on 15 years of
research fro
om 10 nationaal universitiess (high legitim
macy) or 3 yeears of researcch from 3 natiional
universitiess (low legitim
macy). Costareelli then askedd participantss to complete a questionnaiire
exploring th
heir attributio
ons (i.e., perceeived temporaal stability) abbout the low status of theirr ingroup
on one bipo
olar item, and
d their attributtions for theirr ingroup’s pooor performannce on three bbipolar
items (abiliity, effort). Reesponses to th
hese three item
ms were aggrregated to form
m a compositte
attribution score. Next, participants
p
co
ompleted a m
measure of possitive affect (i.e., glad, prooud, calm,
cheerful, saatisfied). Finaally, participan
nts answered items that assessed the efffectiveness off the selfcategorizatiion and legitimacy manipu
ulations. Resuults indicated that the maniipulations weere
successful.
Costarelli (2012) conduccted a hierarchical regressiion analyses tto test the maain predictionss with
n self-categoriization, legitiimacy, and staability. Results indicated a
attributionss regressed on
significant three-way intteraction amo
ong the predicctors. Follow--up analyses iindicated thatt within
the high leg
gitimacy cond
dition, there were
w no signifficant effects or interactionns. However, within the
illegitimacy
y condition, th
here was a sig
gnificant mainn effect for seelf-categorizaation in the soocial
identity con
ndition, as weell as a signifiicant interactiion between sself-categorization and stabbility.
Specifically
y, when sociaal identity wass salient and sstatus differennces were perrceived as tem
mporal
(unstable), participants were
w more lik
kely to attribuute their groupp’s poor acadeemic perform
mance to
low effort than
t
to low ab
bility attributiions.
Regression analyses werre also conduccted with the positive affecct index regreessed on attribbutions,
4
self-categorrization, and legitimacy.
l
Results
R
indicaated that theree was a signifficant main efffect for
attributionss, a significan
nt interaction between
b
attribbutions and leegitimacy andd between attrributions
and self-cattegorization (Costarelli,
(
20
012). As expeected a signifiicant three-waay interactionn emerged.
Follow-up analyses
a
indiccated that theere were no siignificant effeects or interacctions within tthe
individual identity
i
condiition. Howeveer, within thee social identitty condition, there was a simple
main effectt for attributio
ons and legitim
macy, but moore importantlly, there was a significant simple
interaction between attriibutions and legitimacy (seee Figure 7).
Stability wass entered as a coovariate, but beccause no significcant effect emergged, the analysees were re-analyyzed without
including it.
4
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 37
Figure 7. Positive
P
affe
ect as a function of low
w effort attriibutions an
nd experime
ental
legitimacy
y. (Costarelli, 2012, p. 5
54)5
A
Although theree was no association betweeen positive affect
a
and attriibutions in thhe high legitim
macy
coondition, therre was a signifficant associaation in the lo
ow legitimacyy condition. G
Greater low efffort
atttributions weere related to more
m
positivee affect in thee latter (illegittimate) condittion.
C
Costarelli (201
12) found thatt when individ
duals’ group identity is maade salient (w
which should
inncrease group
p identification
n), whether th
hey attribute poor
p
group peerformance too low group eeffort
orr low group ability
a
is consttrained by soccial reality. Low
L effort attrributions are m
made possible when
sttatus differencces are perceiived as illegittimate and unstable. Costarrelli’s findinggs suggest thaat using
soocial creativitty to manage identity threaats, i.e., shiftin
ng evaluationns to positive rrather negativve
diimensions, seerves to preserrve one’s social identity an
nd generate p ositive affectt. And this proocess
w
was observed under
u
an illeg
gitimate statuss structure.
O
Other research
h showed the link
l
between legitimacy an
nd identity maanagement strrategies. For
exxample, Betteencourt, Dorr,, Charlton, an
nd Hume’s (20
001) meta-annalysis showed that perceivved
leegitimacy mod
derated the efffect of group
p status. Speciifically, high status groupss showed morre
faavourable evaaluations towaard their ingro
oup compared
d to outgroupps on both com
mparisons thaat were
reelevant to the status differeence and thosee that were no
ot, irrespectivve of perceiveed legitimacy. In
coontrast, low status groups tended
t
to show more ingro
oup bias on diimensions thaat were imporrtant to
thhe status diffeerence when th
hey perceived
d status differrences as illeggitimate. Thiss latter findingg
suuggests that when
w
status diifferences are not valid, low
w status grouups tend to seee themselves more
faavourably on status-relevan
nt dimensionss to compete with
w the highh status group for positive
diistinctivenesss. Under such conditions, lo
ow status may
y be more likkely to use soccial competitiion as a
sttrategy to add
dress their iden
ntity concern
ns (Bettencourrt et al.). Furthhermore, wheen status diffeerences
w
were perceived
d to be illegitiimate, low staatus groups ev
valuated theirr ingroups moore positivelyy on
diimensions thaat were not im
mportant to staatus differencces, which sugggest that theey may be moore
likkely to use so
ocial creativity
y for positivee distinction from
fr
high stattus groups.
FFigure plotted ussing unstandardiized ȕ weights frrom final regresssion equation. D
Dashed line repreesents the high
leggitimacy conditioon and the solid line represents the low legitimaccy condition.
5
Paage 38
Humanssystems®
See Table 5 for a summaary of the reseearch discuss ed in this secction.
Table 5. Summary
S
se to socios
structural
legitim
macy
Reference
Outco
ome
Schmader, Major,
Eccleston, & McCoy
(2001)
Ͳ Whhen status is perceeived to be legitimaate, higher status groups devalue a
dom
main in which theyy compare unfavouurably to a lower sstatus group.
Ͳ Low
wer status groups devalue a domainn in which they compare
unffavourably to a higgher status group w
when the status ddifference is
perrceived to be illegittimate, but not whhen it is perceived to be legitimate.
Ͳ Whhen status is perceeived to be illegitim
mate, dominant grooups display less
ingroup identification and more outgrouup favouritism, whhereas low status
grooups display more ingroup identificattion.
Ͳ Whhen status is perceeived to be legitimaate, dominant grooup members
enggage in more sociaal competition (es pecially when indiividuals are highlyy
identified with the grooup) and less outggroup favouritism, while nonminant groups dispplay more outgrouup favouritism.
dom
Ͳ Am
mong both dominannt and non-dominaant groups, those who are highly
identified with the inggroup are unlikely to use individual iidentity
management strategies such as individdualization and suuperordinate
recategorization.
Ͳ In Northern
N
Ireland, Catholics
C
perceivee the status differeentiation with
Prootestants to be less legitimate and m
more stable than P
Protestants.
Ͳ In Northern
N
Ireland, Catholics
C
report grreater ingroup identification than
Prootestants.
Ͳ Am
mong both Catholiccs and Protestantss in Northern Irelannd, stability is
possitively associated with ingroup idenntification, but amoong Protestants
stability is also assocciated with individuualization.
Ͳ Am
mong both high andd low status groupps, legitimacy is neegatively
asssociated with ingrooup identification aand social compettition, but positively
asssociated with indivvidualization.
Ͳ Ingroup identificationn is negatively assoociated with indiviidualization and
supperordinate recategorization, and poositively associateed with social
com
mpetition.
Ͳ Low
w status groups (i.e., poor performeers) experience moore positive affect
andd less negative afffect when the statuus differentiation is illegitimate (i.e.,
the outgroup gets an advantage compaared to the ingrouup) rather than
legitimate (i.e., the ouutgroup does not rreceive an advanttage compared to
the ingroup).
w status groups arre more motivatedd to improve their pperformance and
Ͳ Low
hindder the outgroup’ss performance wheen the status diffeerential is
illeggitimate, especially if they feel somee personal responnsibility for the
ingroup’s performancce.
Ͳ Whhen status is perceeived to be illegitim
mate as well as unnstable, poor group
perrformance is attributed to low effort rrather than low abbility by those whoo
identify with the group and this leads too more positive afffect.
c
on d imensions that aree important to
Ͳ Whhen groups make comparisons
stattus differences, high status groups sshow more ingrouup bias regardlesss
of the legitimacy of thhe status differencce whereas low staatus groups show
w
more ingroup bias onnly when the statu s difference is ille gitimate.
Ͳ Whhen groups make comparisons
c
on d imensions that aree irrelevant to
stattus differences, high status groups sshow ingroup biass when group
bouundaries are perm
meable regardless of the legitimacy oor stability of the
struucture.
Ͳ Whhen group boundarries are impermeaable and status diffferences are
perrceived to be illegittimate, high and loow status groups show similar levells
of ingroup bias on dim
mensions that aree irrelevant to statuus differences.
Selective deevaluing
(Social creattivity)
Dumont & van Lill
(2009)
Niens & Cairns (2002)
Ouwerkerk & Ellemers
(2002)
Costarelli (20122)
Bettencourt, Doorr,
Charlton, & Hum
me
(2001)
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Social comppetition
Outgroup favvouritism
(Individual m
mobility)
Social comppetition
Individualizaation,
superordinatte
recategorizaation
(Individual m
mobility)
Social comppetition
Ingroup attribution bias
(Social creattivity)
Social comppetition,
ingroup biass (Social
competition)
Page 39
4
4.3
Perm
meability and
a Identity Manage
ement Strrategies
There is also so
ome evidencee of the impacct the percepttion of permeaability has onn social identiity
m
management sttrategies. Forr example, von
n Hippel (200
06) wonderedd if group bouundaries weree seen
ass permeable, would
w
low staatus memberss would adoptt a different ssocial identityy, i.e., switch rather
thhan fight. Thiss desire, she argued,
a
mightt be reflected in greater ouutgroup favouuritism. To tesst this
nootion, von Hip
ppel surveyed
d temporary and
a permanen
nt employees to examine thheir implicit aand
exxplicit intergrroup attitudes toward their co-workers. Past researchh has shown thhat temporaryy
em
mployees are viewed as haaving lower sttatus than perrmanent emplloyees (e.g., B
Boroughs, 19994;
D
Davidson, 1999; both cited in von Hippeel). Moreover,, temporary eemployees apppear to gain pprestige
thhrough their affiliation
a
with
h permanent employees
e
(D
Davis-Blake & Uzzi, 1993;; cited in von
H
Hippel), suggeesting that their relative soccial standing to
t permanentt employees iss legitimate. IIn
adddition, becau
use temporary
y employees usually
u
have the
t opportuniity to becomee permanent
em
mployees, gro
oup boundariees between th
hese two grou
ups can be desscribed as perrmeable. Baseed on
thhis intergroup
p relation, von
n Hippel prediicted that perm
manent emplooyees would show more inngroup
faavouritism, bu
ut that temporrary employees would also
o show more ooutgroup favoouritism in thhe hope
off upward mob
bility.
voon Hippel (20
006) asked tem
mporary and permanent
p
em
mployees from
m various orgganizations inn the
U
United States to
t fill out a su
urvey about th
heir attitudes toward
t
their jjob and cowoorkers. Tempoorary
em
mployees werre asked to in
ndicate their agreement on measures thaat assessed theeir perceptionns of
thhe relative staatus between temporary
t
and
d permanent employees
e
annd their perceeptions of grouup
peermeability. Permanent
P
em
mployees weree asked to ind
dicate the perccentage of theeir temporaryy
w
workers who would
w
like to obtain
o
permanent employm
ment. Explicitt bias was asssessed using aan
alllocation matrrix (adapted from
f
Tajfel, Billig,
B
Bundy,, & Flament, 1971; cited inn von Hippel)) to
exxamine behav
vioural indicaators of ingrou
up favouritism
m. Participantts were askedd to read two
hyypothetical sccenarios that required
r
them
m to distributee a bonus betw
ween a tempoorary and perm
manent
em
mployee and were given a different cho
oice matrix for each scenarrio. One of thee matrices alllowed
paarticipants to allocate the bonus
b
equally
y between the two memberrs, whereas thhe other forcedd
paarticipants to favour eitherr temporary orr permanent employees.
e
Im
mplicit bias w
was assessed uusing
thhe Linguistic Intergroup
I
Biias (LIB; Maaass, Salvi, Arcuri, & Seminn, 1989; citedd in von Hipppel).
The broad ideaa of the LIB iss that when people are ask
ked to describee the behavioour of ingroupp and
ouutgroup mem
mbers, the conccreteness or abstraction
a
wiithin their desscription is likkely to naturaally
vaary. When peeople describee the positive behaviours of ingroup mem
mbers they arre likely to doo so
m
more abstractly
y and more co
oncretely for outgroup mem
mbers. On thee other hand, when peoplee
deescribe the neegative behav
viours of ingro
oup members they are likeely to do so m
more concretelly and
m
more abstractly
y for outgroup
p members. These
T
differen
nces emphasizze the positivve traits (and
diiminish the im
mportance of negative behaaviours) of in
ngroup memb ers and highlight the negattive
trraits of outgro
oup members while lesseniing the impacct of positive bbehaviours (i.e., by limitinng their
im
mpact to a speecific event orr situation). A total of fourr scenarios weere used to asssess implicit bias,
tw
wo of which involved a tem
mporary emplloyee and two
o of which invvolved a perm
manent emplooyee as
thhe target. The scenarios varried in terms of whether th
he employee pperformed weell or poorly.
Paarticipants in von Hippel’ss (2006) study
y were random
mly assigned to read the sccenarios that eeither
innvolved the teemporary or permanent
p
em
mployee. Afterr participants read each off the scenarioss, they
w
were presented
d with four deescriptive stattements aboutt the target’s bbehaviour rannging from thhe least
too most abstracct, and indicatted their agreement with each statementt.
R
Results for allo
ocation matricces showed th
hat temporary
y and permaneent employeees favoured thhe
peermanent emp
ployees, but permanent
p
em
mployees show
wed more biaas than temporrary employeees.
Paage 40
Humanssystems®
Results of the
t LIB show
wed that both temporary
t
andd permanent eemployees prreferred moree abstract
descriptive statements when
w
they evaluated the po sitive scenariios, but this prreference wass stronger
for a permaanent compareed to a tempo
orary employeee, despite peerforming the same positivee
behaviour. However, forr the negativee scenarios, booth types of eemployees preeferred more concrete
statements, but this prefeerence was stronger for a ppermanent em
mployee who performed thhe same
negative beehaviour as a temporary
t
em
mployee. Accoording to vonn Hippel’s (20006) findings,, both
temporary and
a permanen
nt employees are implicitlyy biased towaard permanent employees. His
results also indicated thaat among temp
porary emplooyees, there w
was a negativee correlation bbetween
explicit and
d implicit meaasures such th
hat bias towarrd permanent employees oon the explicitt measure
also shows bias toward permanent
p
em
mployees on thhe implicit m
measure. This association w
was not
observed am
mong perman
nent employeees. It is imporrtant to note tthat studies onn intergroup rrelations
usually sho
ow more bias on the impliccit than the exxplicit measurres as implicitt measures lesssen social
desirability
y effects. von Hippel specu
ulates that perm
manent emplooyees may haave been strattegic in
their respon
nses on the ex
xplicit bias meeasure and exxaggerated theeir bias againnst temporary
employees.
poses of this investigation, von Hippel’’s (2006) studdy suggests thhat when grouup
For the purp
boundaries are permeablle and status relations
r
are ssecure, low sttatus memberrs are unlikelyy to be
highly iden
ntified with th
heir ingroup. Her
H research sshowed that llow status meembers displayy
outgroup faavouritism on
n both explicitt and implicitt measures. Too overcome a negative soccial
identity, low
w status mem
mbers will opt for change inn group membbership (indivvidual mobility) when
the opportu
unity to join a high status group
g
arises.
Blair and Jo
ost (2003) alsso looked at th
he impact perrceptions of ppermeability hhad on identitty
managemen
nt strategies. To
T this end, they
t
conducteed an experim
mental simulattion in which
individuals had to choosse between ind
dividual and ccollective forrms of advanccement, a situuation
workers oftten deal with in the workpllace. They weere particularlly interested iin the forms oof
advancements that peoplle would select based on thheir opportunnity to improvve their sociall standing
and their level of identiffication with the
t group. Peoople are oftenn confronted w
with decidingg between
what is bestt for themselv
ves versus wh
hat is best for their group ((e.g., Dawes, 1980; Krameer &
Brewer, 1984, both as ciited in Blair & Jost). This ddecision is paarticularly diffficult for mem
mbers of
lower statuss or failing grroups, becausse they are oftten faced withh the decisionn between leaving their
group, optin
ng for individ
dual mobility strategies, orr staying loyal to their grouup, dealing with their
situation co
ollectively (e.g
g., Ellemers, Spears, & Dooosje, 1997; T
Tajfel, 1975; cited in Blairr & Jost).
Research haas shown thatt if individualls have the oppportunity to improve theirr social standiing (i.e.,
group boun
ndaries are perrmeable), they will most liikely choose tto further their own status rather
than staying
g with their group
g
(e.g., Elllemers, Wilkke, & van Kniippenberg, 19993). Howeveer, research
has also sho
own that indiv
viduals who strongly
s
identtify with theirr group tend bbe more inclinned to
remain loyaal (e.g., Jamess & Cropanzaano, 1994; Veeenstra & Hasslam, 2000; ccited in Blair & Jost).
Blair and Jo
ost (2003) preedicted that efffects of grouup permeabilitty on decisionns for individdual versus
collective strategies
s
for improvement
i
t would be mooderated by inndividuals’ leevel of group
identificatio
on. Specificallly, group perrmeability efffects would bee stronger forr those who w
weakly
identify witth their group
p relative to th
hose who stroongly identifyy with their grroup. Weak iddentifiers
would be ex
xpected to tak
ke advantage of permeablee group bounddaries in ordeer to elevate thheir social
standing, whereas
w
high identifiers
i
wo
ould stay loyaal to their grouup, even if inddividual mobility is an
available an
nd attractive option.
o
To tesst their hypothhesis, they coonducted a 2 ((Group Bounddaries:
Permeable vs. Impermeaable) × 2 (Ing
group Identificcation: Low vvs. High) betw
ween-subjectss factorial
design. Partticipants weree given the im
mpression thaat there was annother experim
mental groupp in the
study, whicch enabled theem to consideer themselves as a memberr of the assignned group. Grroups
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 41
asssigned to thee low identificcation condition were asked to solve a sseries of probllems indepenndently
(ggroup membeers interacted very little) an
nd essentially competed wiith their groupp members too win a
prrize for the beest individuall solution. Theey were told that
t they wouuld have to prrovide writtenn
exxplanations an
nd justificatio
ons for their solutions.
s
In contrast,
c
group
ups assigned too the high
iddentification condition
c
werre asked to wo
ork on the pro
oblems interddependently (ggroup membeers
w
were socially engaged)
e
and competed wiith other grou
ups to win a prrize for the beest group soluution.
They were told
d that they wo
ould have to explain
e
and ju
ustify their solutions to thee other group
m
members. Nex
xt, participantss completed a filler task an
nd afterwards were told thaat they wouldd need
too solve anotheer set of probllems, and if th
he team earnss 100 points, tthen the mem
mbers will be eentered
foor a prize.
Prrior to solving
g the problem
ms, participantts in Blair and
d Jost’s (20033) study weree told that theiir
grroup was rand
domly assigneed to the “Lab
bour” position
n, whereas thhe other groupp was assigneed to
thhe “Manager”” position. Meembers of the Manager possition were inntended to be higher in stattus, to
eaarn more poin
nts for every correct
c
probleem solved, an
nd were reportted to have allways earned
ennough points for the prize lottery in the past. Particip
pants were alsso told that thhese group
diifferences refflected real-liffe work situattions. Then paarticipants weere presented with a groupp
booundaries maanipulation an
nd given indiv
vidual mobilitty and collecttive action options (the grooup
booundary maniipulation wass presented in the individuaal mobility opption). In the ppermeable
coondition for in
ndividual mobility, particip
pants were to
old that they ccan join the M
Management ggroup
% of
baased on their performance on a prelimin
nary set of pro
oblems and nneeded to earnn less than 50%
thhe total pointss (15 out of 35
5). In the imp
permeable con
ndition, they hhad to earn 1000% of the tootal
pooints. For the collective acction option, Blair
B
and Jostt told participaants that theyy could contribbute all
off their points to a group po
ool, and if the pool meets a certain numbber of points based on the total
nuumber of people in the gro
oup pool, mem
mbers could advance
a
to thee Managemennt group. Thiss
prresented the opportunity
o
to
o stay or leavee. Before partticipants actuually started thhe series of
prroblems, they
y had rated thee appeal of th
he two optionss and were reequired to tell the experimeenter
w
which option th
hey preferred
d with no furth
her chance to change theirr decision. Finnally, particippants
w
were presented
d with the man
nipulation ch
heck items.
A
According to Blair
B
and Jost (2003), participants in thee impermeabl e condition w
were less likelly to
beelieve that a sufficient
s
num
mber of pointss would be acccumulated inn the group poool to move uup to
thhe management level comp
pared to thosee in the permeeable conditioon. Moreover,, there was a
siignificant inteeraction betweeen group ideentification an
nd group bounndary permeaability for colllective
acction when paarticipants ratted the attracttiveness of thee two strategiies. Specificallly, participannts in
thhe low identiffication/ high permeability condition ratted the collecttive action strrategy as the least
atttractive optio
on, compared to ratings of the other threee conditions.. The other thhree conditionns were
eqquivalent in attractiveness.
a
. For individu
ual mobility, there
t
were noo differences bbetween condditions.
Inn terms of parrticipants’ acttual choice off strategy, the results indicaated that theree was an interraction
beetween group
p identification
n and group permeability,
p
such that parrticipants in thhe low
iddentification/h
high permeab
bility condition were less liikely to choosse collective aaction compaared to
thhe other three groups, and again
a
the otheer three group
ps did not diff
ffer from eachh other.
The findings frrom Blair and
d Jost’s (2003
3) research sho
ow that whenn individuals hhave the
oppportunity to improve their social stand
ding, when gro
oup boundariies are seen ass permeable, tthose
w
who weakly id
dentify with th
he group will most likely choose
c
to leavve their groupp. Collective aaction
too these individ
duals is the leeast attractive strategy com
mpared to indiividual mobiliity when their group
iss low in statuss. On the otheer hand, thosee who strongly
y identify witth their groupp will most likkely
sttay loyal to th
heir group, even if they bellieve that indiividual mobiliity will be moore successfuul than
coollective actio
on. Loyalty to
o a group, therefore, is relaated to how cllosely one ideentifies with tthat
Paage 42
Humanssystems®
group. Wheen group boun
ndaries are seeen as permeaable and one bbelongs to a llow status grooup, it is
more probaable that weak
k identifiers will
w adopt indiividual mobillity as their prreferred identtity
managemen
nt strategy to improve their social statuss.
In a series of
o studies, Vaan Vugt and Hart
H (2004) allso examined the role of soocial identity in
promoting group
g
loyalty
y under a perm
meable situatiion. They propposed the soccial glue hypoothesis of
social identtity, which theey believed would
w
be suppported by eviddence that higghly identifiedd group
members would
w
display more group loyalty
l
than thhose who weaakly identify with their grooup (as
found by Blair and Jost, 2003), especially when thhey could benefit by leavinng the group thhus
fostering grroup stability and integrity
y. They also exxamine three kinds of reassons why peoople’s
social identtity may influ
uence group lo
oyalty. First, iindividuals’ ppast investmeents in the grooup may
mediate thee relation betw
ween group id
dentity and grroup loyalty, w
which is referrred to as the selfperception hypothesis. A second med
diator may be individuals’ extremely poositive percepttions of
ferred to as thee group-perceeption hypothhesis. Finally,, a third mediiator may
their group, which is refe
originate from a generic social norm such
s
as feelinng obligated tto help other ggroup membeers or
doing what other group members
m
mig
ght do, which is referred too as the norm--perception hy
hypothesis.
The researcchers tested th
heir hypothesees in three stuudies. The ressults of studiees 1 and 2 aree
summarized
d and Study 3 is described
d in detail becaause it buildss on the findinngs from the ffirst two
studies.
V
and Harrt (2004) founnd that when there was an attraction exiit option
In Studies 1 and 2, Van Vugt
(permeable boundaries), participants who stronglyy identified wiith the group were more likkely to
stay with th
he group than those who weakly
w
identifi
fied with the ggroup, thus prromoting grouup
integrity. When
W
the exit option was un
nattractive (bboundaries weere impermeaable), there waas no
difference in
i group loyallty between high
h
and low iidentifiers. Thhe findings w
were not mediated by
the amount of time participants were willing to invvest in their ggroup, failing to support a sselfperception explanation for
f the social glue hypothe sis. They did find, howeveer, that particiipants’
positive perrceptions, butt not past inveestments, meddiated the relaation betweenn group identiification
and group loyalty,
l
such that
t higher id
dentification w
was related too more positivve group perceptions,
which in tu
urn, was relateed to more gro
oup loyalty, pproviding suppport for the ggroup-percepttion
hypothesis.
d a 2 (group iddentification: low vs. high)) × 2 (other’s choice:
In Study 3, the researcheers conducted
stay vs. leav
ve) between-ssubjects facto
orial design. P
Participants arrrived at the eexperimental session in
groups of six and were to
old that the sttudy was con ducted by theeir own univeersity and the
university’ss rival. Particiipants were either told thatt the researchhers were inteerested in how
w well
groups of sttudents from each universiity perform thhe task (high identificationn condition) oor that the
researchers were interestted in how individual studdents perform on the task (llow identificaation
condition).
p in a comp
puter-mediateed group investment task w
with the other
Next, particcipants took part
participantss in their expeerimental sesssion. At the bbeginning of eeach trial, partticipants receeived an
endowmentt that could eiither be invessted in the grooup or themseelves. If the ggroup’s investtment
reached a certain value, then all of thee participantss would get a return regarddless of what tthey had
invested du
uring the trial.. Bogus feedb
back was giveen to participaants after eachh trial, and thhe results
suggested to participantss that the grou
up had failed in the majoriity of trials. A
After the sixthh trial,
participantss received a message
m
sayin
ng that they w
were half way through the iinvestment tassk and
were given the opportun
nity to leave th
he group to w
work on their oown for the reemainder of tthe task. If
they decideed to work on their own, th
hey would be given a fixedd amount of m
money for eacch trial
which woulld be more th
han if they stay
yed with theiir group. Thenn they were toold that the otther group
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 43
m
members woulld have to maake a decision
n to stay or leaave the groupp and that for tthe rest of thee task
thheir group wo
ould still need
d at least four contributors in
i order to eaarn a bonus.
W
While participaants were decciding whetheer they should
d stay or leavee the group, thhey were ablee to see
thhe decision off one other gro
oup member. Participants were assigne d a letter from
m (A-F) and
deecisions weree always madee in alphabetiical order and
d the participaant was alwayys assigned too
“M
Member B”. Participants
P
either
e
obtained
d feedback th
hat Member A chose to stayy in the groupp
(oother stay con
ndition) or to leave
l
the grou
up and work independently
i
y (other leavee condition).
Paarticipants theen answered the
t dependen
nt measures, which
w
includeed an item aboout emotionall
looyalty (“I feell loyal to this group”), behaavioural loyalty (“For the nnext trials, I w
want to remaiin a
m
member of thiss group”), and
d items assesssing external attributions ( e.g., “Was it because the ttask is
diifficult to und
derstand?”) an
nd internal atttributions (e.g
g., “…people are not pullinng their weighhts for
thhe group?). Fiinally, they in
ndicated how attractive theey found the ooption to leave the group.
A two-way AN
NOVA showeed that there was
w a main efffect of group identificationn for behavioural
looyalty, such th
hat those who
o strongly iden
ntified with th
he group werre more willinng to stay withh the
grroup than those who were weakly identtified. In addittion, participaants’ decisionn to stay with the
grroup was not influenced by
y another grou
up member’s choice (norm
m-perceptionss). Additionall
annalyses showeed that emotio
onal loyalty significantly
s
mediated
m
the rrelation betw
ween identificaation
annd behaviouraal loyalty, succh that the mo
ore participan
nts identified w
with their grooup, the moree loyal
thhey felt to their group, which in turn, waas associated with their deccision to stayy with the grouup.
Fuurther analysees indicated that
t participan
nts who highly identified w
with their grouup were moree likely
too make extern
nal attribution
ns and less likely to make in
nternal attribuutions for theeir group’s faiilure
reelative to thosse who weakly
y identified with
w their grou
up.
Taken togetherr, the findingss demonstratee that social id
dentity can bee beneficial bby keep groupps intact
w
when the boun
ndaries betweeen groups aree permeable. When
W
leavingg the group beenefits the sellf,
inndividuals wh
ho highly (vs. weakly) iden
ntify with theiir group are m
more likely to stay with thee
grroup, displayiing their grou
up loyalty. Th
hus, social ideentity can be pperceived as tthe social glue that
keeep groups to
ogether that may
m otherwise dissolve. If individuals
i
w
were to leave thheir group, thhey
w
would also tak
ke valuable ressources (i.e., monetary con
ntributions) frrom the groupp. Further,
inndividuals red
duced threat in
nflicted on th
he group (i.e., attractive exiit option) by sshowing stronnger
grroup loyalty. Thus, social identity
i
is a way
w to maintaain stability annd integrity inn groups. Finally,
grroup loyalty seems
s
to be a result of evalluating the grroup positivelly (group-percception) ratheer than
hoow much onee has invested
d into the grou
up (personal-p
perception) orr how other ggroup memberrs are
beehaving (norm
m-perception)).
H
Hornsey and Hogg
H
(2002) examined
e
superordinate reccategorizationn as a social iidentity
m
management sttrategy (mobiilization) for low
l status gro
oup memberss, and consideered how this might
bee adopted wh
hen group bou
undaries were not dependen
nt on permeabbility. They eexplained thatt when
inndividuals aree part of a low
w status group
p, they often have
h
a supero rdinate category that they share
w
with other subg
groups, and th
hey may try to obtain a mo
ore positive iddentity by cattegorizing
thhemselves as part
p of the su
uperordinate group
g
rather th
han the subgrroup to whichh they belong.. They
arrgued that this strategy is an
a efficient way
w of managiing negative iidentity, becauuse it is not
deependent on permeable
p
gro
oup boundariees. Rather, it involves shift
fting the levell of inclusivenness of
thhe individualss’ group categ
gory to be viewed differenttly by themseelves and otheers. However,, when
m
members of low
w status grou
up use this straategy, they may
m feel threattened by a lacck of positivee
diistinctivenesss from other groups
g
and do
omination by members
m
from
m the higher sstatus subgroups
(M
Mummendey & Wenzel, 1999; cited in Hornsey & Hogg).
H
As succh, this strateggy may lead
Paage 44
Humanssystems®
members off low status groups
g
to expeerience a confflict between enhancing thheir identity aand
defending their
t
distinctiv
veness among
g other group s.
Hornsey an
nd Hogg (2002
2) examined if people whoo perceive theeir group as loow in status teend to
identify mo
ore with superrordinate cateegories than thhose who perrceive their grroup as high iin status.
They also examined
e
the effect of cateegorization onn how membeers respond too status inform
mation by
emphasizin
ng either their superordinatte category orr both their suuperordinate aand subgroup
categories. This can test whether threats to subgrouup distinctiveeness influencces the strateggies used
by low statu
us group mem
mbers. Hornseey and Hogg hypothesizedd that individuuals induced tto
categorize themselves
t
ass a superordin
nate member w
would show ggreater interggroup bias thaan those
induced to categorize theemselves as both
b
a superorrdinate and suubgroup mem
mber. In additiion, the
viduals perceiv
ved their subg
group status, the more theyy would categgorize themseelves at
lower indiv
the superordinate level.
Hornsey an
nd Hogg (2002
2) tested theirr hypotheses in two studies. In Study 1,, they manipuulated level
of group caategorization (superordinat
(
te vs. simultanneous) and m
manipulated suubgroup status (high
status vs. lo
ow status) viaa false feedbacck. In generall, they found support for thheir hypothesses.
However, th
he status man
nipulation had
d little indepeendent effect oon participantts’ perceptionns of their
ingroup. Ho
ornsey and Hogg reasoned
d that some paarticipants maay not have taaken the falsee feedback
seriously, and
a easily dism
missed or ratiionalized anyy type of negaative feedbackk. Therefore, tthey
measured perceptions
p
off subgroup staatus and also manipulated level of groupp categorizatiion in
Study 2.
s
maths--science studeents completeed a questionnnaire about
In Hornsey and Hogg (2002) second study,
des toward being a memberr of their facuulty area, andd one of the iteems assessed their
their attitud
perceptionss of relative su
ubgroup statu
us (e.g., “Thinnk for a moment about the relative statuus of
maths-scien
nce and humaanities studentts at the Univversity of Queeensland”). N
Next, participaants were
asked to thiink about a go
overnment prroposal to turnn a vacant pieece of land intto a park. Parrticipants
were given a list of objeccts and servicces and askedd to indicate thhe items that they think woould lead
to a well-fu
unctioning parrk. They weree presented w
with the categoorization mannipulation. In the
superordina
ate condition, participants were given innstructions thhat made them
m focus on theeir
university membership
m
and
a less so on
n themselves aas individualss by asking thhem to choosee the label
that applied
d to them (“U
UQ student” vss. “town plannner”) and preesenting them
m with the univversity
logo on carrdboard. They
y were told that the researcchers were intterested in loooking at univeersity
students’ reesponses becaause past research has show
wn that they ccan have insigghts into probblems that
town planners may not have.
h
In the siimultaneous ccondition, afteer receiving tthe instructionns from
the superordinate condition, they werre also told th at the researcchers were intterested in com
mparing
responses between
b
math
hs-science and
d humanities sstudents. Studdents in the ddifferent faculties were
given differrent coloured pen to fill ou
ut their responnse sheet, whiich enabled a symbolic disstinction
between thee two facultiees without phy
ysically separrating them innto groups. Thheir responsee sheets
allowed theem to circle th
he labels that represented ttheir superorddinate group ((“UQ student””) or their
subgroup (““maths-sciencce” or “human
nities”). Agaiin, group bouundaries were not dependennt on
permeabilitty.
Hornsey an
nd Hogg (2002
2) measured the
t manipulattion check iteem, participannts level of
identificatio
on with the faaculty area an
nd the universsity (e.g., “In terms of yourr general attittudes and
beliefs, how
w much do yo
ou feel similarr to other peoople in your faaculty area?; adapted from
m Hains,
Hogg, & Duck, 1997; cited in Hornseey & Hogg), aand the extentt to which theey wanted to bbe
categorized
d at the supero
ordinate or su
ubgroup level.. Finally, inteergroup bias w
was assessed oon three
dimensionss: representatiion bias (the difference
d
bettween feelingg good about tthe superordinnate group
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 45
beeing represen
nted by all hum
manities vs. all
a maths-scien
nce students) , contact biass (the differennce
beetween how much
m
fun it would
w
be to wo
ork on a task with humanitties vs. mathss-science studdents),
annd likeability bias (the diffference betweeen general po
ositivity towaard humanities vs. maths-sccience
sttudents).
R
Results showed
d that the cateegorization manipulation
m
was
w effective.. Hornsey andd Hogg (20022)
coonducted regrression analysses with the categorization
c
n and status vaariables and ttheir interactioon as
thhe predictor variables,
v
and identification
n, self-categorrization, and intergroup bias as the criteerion
vaariables. Anallyses for participants’ leveel of identificaation with theeir faculty areea showed thaat there
w
was a significaant interaction
n between thee two predicto
ors. In the supperordinate coondition, the hhigher
inn status mathss-science stud
dents viewed themselves,
t
th
he more they identified wiith their facullty
arrea, whereas for
f those in th
he simultaneo
ous condition,, there was noo relation betw
ween status annd
iddentification. For participan
nts’ preferred
d level of selff-categorizatioon, there was only a main eeffect
off status indicaating that the lower in statu
us maths-science students pperceived theeir faculty to bbe, the
m
more they prefferred to be co
onsidered a member
m
of thee university.
Foor intergroup bias (the threee bias measu
ures were com
mbined into a single index)), Hornsey and
H
Hogg (2002) found
fo
a main effect
e
of statu
us, but this waas qualified bby the two-waay interaction.. The
innteraction sho
owed that, in the
t superordin
nate condition
n, the higher iin status studdents perceiveed their
faaculty to be, th
he more ingro
oup bias they displayed. In
n the simultanneous conditioon, there was no
siignificant asso
ociation betw
ween the statuss and ingroup
p bias. Furtherr analyses connsisting of a m
median
spplit on the status variable showed
s
that high
h
status parrticipants in thhe superordinnate conditionn
shhowed more ingroup
i
bias than
t
high status participantts in the simuultaneous conddition as welll as
loow status partticipants in bo
oth categorizaation conditions.
The findings frrom Hornsey and Hogg’s (2002)
(
two stu
udies indicatee that superorrdinate
reecategorizatio
on, essentially
y a mobilizatio
on strategy, may
m be used bby low status members maanage
thheir identity concerns. Likee von Hippel (2006) and Blair
B
and Jost (2003), if inddividuals see aan
oppportunity to adopt anotheer social identtity to improv
ve their currennt status, theyy may do this if
grroup boundarries are permeeable. In the case
c
of Hornsey and Hogg,, individuals m
managed theiir low
sttatus by assum
ming a supero
ordinate categ
gory as this grroup permeabbility was not restricted. Onn the
otther hand, Ho
ornsey and Ho
ogg showed th
hat high statu
us members w
will protect theeir subgroup
diistinctivenesss by showing more ingroup
p bias (negativ
ve perceptionns of the low sstatus group) when
thhey are catego
orized at the superordinate
s
level with lower status subbgroups. No ingroup bias was
prresent when the
t distinctiveeness of the su
ubgroups wass upheld. Highh status groupps, therefore, might
siimply reject th
he mobilizatio
on strategy, superordinate
s
recategorizattion, in order to maintain thheir
hiigh status iden
ntity and distinctiveness.
B
Boen, Vanbeseelaere, and Co
ool (2006) ex
xamined the reelation between the perceivved status of an
orrganization affter a merger and employees’ level of id
dentification w
with the new organization. When
a merger occurrs between tw
wo organizatio
ons, employeees are often faaced with a siituation that
innvolves a chan
nge in group membership from the pre--merger organnization to thee new organizzation.
Inn addition, thee new organizzation includees the pre-merrger ingroup and the pre-m
merger outgrooup.
Inndividuals bellonging to a low status verrsus high statu
us pre-mergerr organizationn might have
diifferent motiv
ves after a meerger. The form
mer group maay be more atttuned to enhaancing their sstatus
(bbolstering), whereas
w
the lattter may be more
m
attuned to protecting ttheir status, especially wheen the
neew merger orrganization is perceived as high in statuss. As this is a merger, shift
fting group
booundaries sho
ould be underrstood as perm
meable, and to
o bolster theirr social identiity, low statuss group
m
members migh
ht adopt an ind
dividual mobility strategy and embrace their new poost-merger
orrganization id
dentity.
Paage 46
Humanssystems®
Boen et al. (2006) hypotthesized that employees’
e
pperceptions off their status bbefore and aftter the
merger wou
uld influence their level off identificationn with the post-merger orgganization. Sppecifically,
among emp
ployees of thee high status pre-merger
p
orrganization thhere should bee a positive reelation
between theeir perceived post-merger status and theeir level of iddentification w
with the post-m
merger
organization, but this asssociation, Boeen et al. argueed, should bee stronger amoong employeees of the
low status pre-merger
p
orrganization. Itt was also hyppothesized thhat employeess’ pre-merger status and
post-merger identificatio
on would influ
uence post-m
merger identifiication. Speciifically, high status premerger emp
ployees would
d show a posiitive associatiion between ttheir pre- andd post-merger levels of
identificatio
on, but this asssociation wo
ould be strongger for low staatus pre-mergger employeess. Boen et
al. also exp
pected their peerceived statu
us and identifiication after tthe merger woould be positiively
related but only for employees who weakly
w
identiffied with the ppre-merger orrganization annd not for
those that strongly identiified with thee pre-merger oorganization. Finally, the rresearchers teentatively
hypothesizeed that pre- an
nd post-merger status and pre-merger iddentification w
would interacct to
influence post-merger id
dentification, such that the relation betw
ween post-merrger status annd postmerger iden
ntification wo
ould be for weeakly identifi ed employeess of the low sstatus pre-merrger
organization.
(
adminiistered a quesstionnaire to eemployees froom two
To test their predictions,, Boen et al. (2006)
companies. Company A had six different sites andd 460 employeees, whereas Company B hhad one
site, 102 em
mployees, and
d was in serious financial tr
trouble. Basedd on this inforrmation, Com
mpany A
was higher in status than
n Company B.
B Company A was in the pprocess of taking over Com
mpany B,
which impllied that Com
mpany B would
d cease to exiist and that itss site would bbe another sitee for
Company A.
A The questio
onnaire was distributed
d
to employees inn Company B and employeees from
two sites in
n Company A. In all three, the majority of respondennts were blue--collar employyees.
However, site
s A1 had th
he greatest num
mber of whitee-collar emplloyees compaared with sitess A2 and B
because it had
h productio
on, commerciaal, and adminnistrative unitss. The three ssites did not ddiffer in
terms of thee proportion of
o men and women
w
and disstribution of aage.
Participantss were asked to indicate th
heir level of iddentification w
with the pre-m
merger organiization on
three items (e.g., “Before the merger I felt very connnected to coompany A [coompany B] beefore the
merger”; ad
dapted from Boen,
B
Vanbesselaere, De W
Witte, and Luijjters, 2003; ciited in Boen eet al.) and
level of identification wiith the post-m
merger organizzation on threee items simillar to those ussed to
measure pree-merger iden
ntification (e.g., “I feel verry connected tto company A after the meerger”).
They were also asked to indicate theirr perceived prre-merger staatus (e.g., “Thhe prestige off company
A before th
he merger, com
mpared with company
c
B bbefore the merrger was…” rrated on a 5-ppoint scale
where 1 = much
m
lower an
nd 5 = much higher) and ppost-merger sttatus (e.g., “C
Compared witth other
corrugated board produccing organizattions, the presstige of comppany A after tthe merger is at the
moment…”” rated on a 5-point scale where
w
1 = mucch lower and 5 = much higgher).
Boen et al. (2006) found
d that employeees of site B pperceived thee status of their pre-mergerr
organization as significaantly lower than those of siites A1 and A
A2. For post-m
merger status,,
employees from site A1 perceived thee post-mergerr status as siggnificantly low
wer than pre-m
merger
status, wherreas employeees from site B perceived thhe post-merger status as siignificantly hhigher than
pre-merger status. And employees
e
fro
om site A2 peerceived no chhange in statuus from pre- tto postmerger. Forr pre-merger identification
n, employees ffrom site A2 showed signiificantly less
identificatio
on with the prre-merger org
ganization thaan did those fr
from site A1. Additionally,, there
were no diffferences in prre-merger ideentification am
mong employyees from sitees A1 and B. Finally,
employees from site B sh
howed signifficantly less p ost-merger iddentification ccompared to tthose from
sites A1 and A2, and theese latter two groups did noot differ from
m each other.
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 47
B
Boen et al. (20
006) conducteed regression analyses to teest their hypottheses, with ppre-merger staatus,
poost-merger staatus, and pre--merger identtification as th
he predictor vvariables and post-merger
iddentification as
a the criterion variables. Results
R
showeed that the thrree-way interaaction was noot
siignificant. Ho
owever, all off the predicted
d two-way intteractions werre significant. The interacttion
beetween pre-m
merger status and
a post-merg
ger status sho
owed that amoong low statuus pre-merger
em
mployees, thee higher they perceived thee new organizzation to be, thhe more they identified wiith it.
N
No relation bettween post-m
merger status and
a post-merg
ger identificattion was obseerved for highh status
prre-merger em
mployees. The interaction between
b
pre-m
merger status and pre-mergger identificattion
shhowed that fo
or both high- and
a low status pre-merger organizationss, the more em
mployees idenntified
w
with their pre-m
merger organ
nization, the more
m
they also
o identified w
with the post-m
merger organiization.
H
However, this relation was stronger for employees
e
fro
om the high sttatus pre-merrger organizattion.
Fiinally, the intteraction betw
ween post-merrger status an
nd pre-mergerr identificationn showed thaat
em
mployees weaak in pre-merrger identificaation showed a positive rellation betweenn post-merger status
annd post-mergeer identificatiion, whereas employees
e
high in pre-merrger identificaation showedd no
siignificant relaation between
n the two variaables.
The findings frrom Boen et al.
a (2006) stud
dy suggest th
hat for low staatus employeees, their level of
poost-merger id
dentification was
w strongly influenced
i
by
y the status off the post-merrger organizattion.
A
Also, for high status group, it may have been
b
easier to
o transfer theiir identificatioon from the prem
merger to the post-merger
p
organization,
o
which
w
may ex
xplain why thhere was no reelation between preannd post-mergeer identificatiion. For the lo
ow status grou
up, they expeerienced the ggreatest amounnt of
orrganizational changes and their identificcation with th
he pre-mergerr organizationn may have
trransferred to the
t post-merg
ger organizatio
on to some ex
xtent given thhat their workk location andd cow
workers remain
ned the same, which might explain the positive
p
relattion between ppre- and postm
merger identifiication. In terrms of the relaation between
n post-mergerr status and prre-merger
iddentification, employees who
w do not feeel closely tied
d to their pre-m
merger organization may bbe
m
more likely to psychologicaally disengagee from it, the more
m
they vieew the post-m
merger organization
ass higher in staatus, as such the
t higher thee perceived status of the neew organizatioon, the more they
iddentify with itt. In contrast, for those thatt do feel closeely tied to theeir pre-mergerr organizationn no
reelation betweeen post-mergeer status and post-merger
p
identification
i
may have beeen observed,
beecause they are
a more likely
y to remain faaithful to the pre-merger o rganization thhan to be perssuaded
In the end, moving
byy the possibility of status enhancement.
e
m
up by individual m
mobility mightt be a
goood identity management
m
strategy
s
when
n group bound
daries are perrmeable.
There is other research that connects the perception off permeabilityy with identitty strategies. F
For
exxample, Betteencourt et al.’s (2001) metaa-analysis sho
owed that whhen comparisoons were madde on
diimensions thaat were irrelev
vant to status differences, high
h
status grroups generallly favoured thhe
inngroup over reelevant outgro
oups. Howev
ver, there weree also interacttive effects off the sociostruuctural
vaariables on th
hese dimensio
ons. When gro
oup boundariees were perceeived as perm
meable, high sttatus
grroups showed
d more ingrou
up bias than lo
ow status grou
ups, regardlesss of stabilityy or legitimacyy.
H
However, the difference
d
bettween the hig
gh and low staatus groups w
was smaller whhen the groupp
booundaries were impermeab
ble. Also, wheen group bou
undaries were impermeablee and when sttatus
diifferences weere illegitimate, high and lo
ow status grou
ups showed s imilar levels of ingroup biias.
B
Based on Betteencourt et al.’’s meta-analysis, it appearss that, under m
most conditioons for high sttatus
grroups, they may
m be more liikely to use social creativitty strategies ffor positive inngroup
diistinctivenesss by evaluatin
ng their own group
g
more po
ositively on ddimensions that are irrelevaant to
thhe status hieraarchy.
Table 6, summ
marizes the ressearch pertain
ning to the im
mpact of percep
eptions of perm
meability on
iddentity manag
gement strateg
gies.
Paage 48
Humanssystems®
Table 6. Summary
S
se to socios
structural
ability
permea
Reference
Outccome
von Hippel (20006)
Ͳ Loow status group members
m
(i.e., tem
mporary employeess) who feel that
grroup boundaries are
a permeable andd that the social sttructure is stable,
shhow greater outgrooup favouritism annd ingroup derogaation in an effort too
chhange their group membership.
Outgroup favouritism,
ingroup deroogation
(Individual m
mobility)
Blair & Jost (20003)
Ͳ Inndividuals who aree weakly identified with their group aand perceive group
booundaries to be peermeable are lesss likely to favour coollective action and
arre more likely to faavour leaving theirr group if the oppoortunity arises.
Ͳ Inndividuals who aree highly identified w
with their group arre likely to stay
looyal to their group even if they perceeive the boundariees between the
grroups to be permeeable.
Group loyallty (Individual
mobility)
Van Vugt & Hart (2004)
Ͳ Inndividuals who aree strongly identifiedd with their group show more groupp
looyalty to their group when there is ann attractive optionn to leave the grouup
annd this is mediatedd by their positive perceptions of thee group rather thaan
hoow invested they feel
f in the group.
Ͳ Group
G
loyalty may be
b used by high iddentifiers as a straategy to avert
exxternal threat to thhe group to maintaain the stability an d integrity of the
grroup when group boundaries
b
appeaar to be permeablee.
Group loyaltty (Individual
mobility)
Hornsey & Hoggg (2002)
Ͳ Irrespective of perm
meability, low statuus group memberss can adopt
suuperordinate recattegorization as a m
mobilization strateegy to improve theeir
sttatus as this is nott dependent on grooup boundary perrmeability.
Ͳ High status group members
m
maintainn their distinctiveneess from low statuus
grroup members by focusing on their subgroup rather t han superordinatee
grroup identity, and perceive low statuus group memberss more negativelyy
when
w
they are categorized with both superordinate andd subgroup
iddentities.
Superordinaate
recategorizaation
(Individual m
mobility)
Boen, Vanbeseelaere &
Cool (2006)
Ͳ When
W
merging one organization into another and grouup boundaries are
peermeable, membeers of the lower staatus organization identify with the
neew organization more
m strongly whenn their perceived sstatus in the new
orrganization is highher.
Ͳ Those in a high status organization w
who were more strrongly identified
with
w the organizatioon pre-merger are also more identifiied post-merger.
This is not true of loow status organizaation members.
Ͳ Foor those who are weakly
w
identified w
with their organizaation pre-merger,
thheir identification post-merger
p
is asssociated with their perceived status.
Organizationnal
identificationn (Individual
mobility)
Bettencourt, Doorr,
Charlton, & Hum
me
(2001)
Ͳ When
W
group bounddaries are permeabble high status grooups show more
inngroup favouritism on dimensions thhat are both relevaant and irrelevant tto
thhe group distinction, regardless of thhe legitimacy or sttability of the statuus
sttructure.
Ͳ When
W
group bounddaries are seen to be permeable, low
w status group
members
m
favour thee outgroup if theree are opportunitiess for individual
mobility,
m
but favour the ingroup if thesse opportunities aare not available.
Ͳ When
W
group bounddaries are impermeeable and status ddifferences are
peerceived to be illeggitimate and unstaable, high and low
w status groups
shhow similar levels of ingroup bias onn dimensions that are irrelevant to
sttatus differences.
competition))
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Positive disstinctiveness
(Social creativity)
Page 49
4
4.4
Othe
er Researc
ch examin
ning Socio
ostructura
al Beliefs and Identtity
Mana
agement Strategies
S
s
Soome research
h specifically examined
e
all three sociostrructural belieefs and the choice of identiity
m
management sttrategies. Forr example, Keessler and Mu
ummendey’s ((2002) longituudinal study
exxamined chan
nges in percep
ptions of interrgroup relatio
ons and hypotthesized causaal sequence oof the
prrocesses positted by social identity theorry and relative deprivationn theory (RDT
T; e.g., Ellemeers,
19993; cited in Kessler
K
and Mummendey)
M
). They explaiin that both thheories postullate a causal
seequence wherreby individuaals’ perceptio
ons of intergro
oup relations influence ideentity processes, and
thhese processess affect the id
dentity manag
gement strateg
gy that is usedd. Despite theeir similaritiess, the
tw
wo theories diiverge with reespect to diffeerent mediatin
ng processes. Specifically,, SIT emphasiizes
coognitive variaables related to
t aspects of group
g
membeership, such aas level of grooup identificattion
(B
Brown & Rosss; cited in Keessler and Mu
ummendey), whereas
w
RDT
T emphasizes affective variiables
reelated to grou
up deprivation
n, such as feellings of resenttment towardd groups (e.g.,, Cook, Crosbby, &
H
Hennigan, 197
77; cited in Keessler and Mu
ummendey).
The unification
n of East and West German
ny provided the
t social conntext backdropp for Kessler and
M
Mummendey’ss (2002) study
y. This mergeer was expected to bring toogether two grroups of uneqqual
sttatus under a single
s
commo
on identity (i..e., Germans). They explaiined that Eastt Germans aree
tyypically perceeived to be infferior to Westt Germans. Kessler
K
and M
Mummendey teested the relattions
beetween the major
m
variabless outlined in SIT
S and RDT
T. Figure 8 shoows their moddel which is aan
exxpanded versiion of Tajfel and Turner’s (1986).
Figure 8. Inte
egrated SIT
T-and-RDT model
m
(Kess
sler and Mu
ummendey, 2002, p. 76
6)
Inn general, perceptions of th
he sociostructtural characterristics were eexpected to prredict the idenntity
m
management sttrategies used
d, but to be mediated
m
by grroup identificaation (derivedd from SIT) oor
reesentment (deerived from RDT).
R
Kesslerr and Mummeendey (2002) also includedd a third mediiator in
thhe model, colllective efficaccy, which ind
dicates expecttations of impprovement or deterioration in
inntergroup dyn
namics. Collecctive efficacy
y is also derived from RDT
T. Overall, theey hypothesizzed that
Paage 50
Humanssystems®
the perceptiions of the intergroup struccture would iinfluence leveel of group identification, ffeelings of
resentment,, and collectiv
ve efficacy. In
n addition, Keessler and Muummendey exxpected identtification
to predict collective efficcacy and reseentment, as grreater identification with a group is assoociated
with more collective
c
effiicacy (e.g., Mummendey
M
eet al., 1999) aand increases the possibilityy of
experiencin
ng group-baseed emotions (e.g., Smith, 11993; cited in Kessler and M
Mummendeyy). Their
prediction was
w less clearr for the relatiion between ccollective effiicacy and reseentment.
To examinee the effectiveeness of identtity managem
ment strategiess, Kessler andd Mummendeey (2002)
assessed thrree classes off strategies. Fiirst, individuaal strategies w
were assessedd by social moobility
(individualss try to leave the ingroup for
f another grroup) and recaategorizationn at a higher llevel
(ingroup an
nd outgroup members
m
beco
ome part of a superordinatee category – rrecall Hornseyy & Hogg,
2002). Seco
ond, collectiv
ve strategies in
ncluded sociaal competitionn (conflict oveer favourablee
evaluationss) and realistic competition
n (conflict oveer real resourrces, such as m
money and lannd).
Finally, creeative strategies included with
w preferencce of temporaal comparisonns (placing moore
importance on the comparison of pastt and present situation of E
East Germanss than on the
comparison
n between Easst and West Germans)
G
andd re-evaluation of the material or econoomic
dimension (perceiving
(
th
he material co
omparison dim
mension as leess important than the sociaal
dimension for
f a positive social identitty). The threee strategies deelineated by K
Kessler and
Mummendeey essentially
y map onto Taajfel and Turnner’s (1986) tthree, individuual mobility, social
competition
n, and social creativity
c
resp
pectively.
All of Kesssler and Mum
mmendey’s (20
002) participaants were peoople who weree born and stiill resided
in East Gerrmany. Repeaated measures were taken aat four differeent time pointts, spaced onee year
apart. In each questionnaaire, participaants were askeed to indicatee whether theiir status was iinferior,
equal, or su
uperior compaared to West Germans.
G
Theen they were asked to indiicate their perrceptions
of intergrou
up stability (ee.g., “I think th
he relationshiip between Eaast and West Germany willl remain
stable for th
he next few years”),
y
legitim
macy (e.g., “T
The West Gerrmans are enttitled to be better off
than the Eaast Germans”)), and permeaability (e.g., “IIn principle, iit is not difficcult for an Easst German
to be consid
dered as a Weest German.”)). There weree three items ffor each socioostructural vaariable and
they were all
a answered on
o a 5-point rating scale froom 1 (compleetely disagreee) to 5 (complletely
agree). Theen Kessler and
d Mummendeey rated the m
material groupp status of Eaast Germans (ee.g.,
standard off living, econo
omic status) on
o a 5-point raating scale ran
anging from 1 (worst situattion) to 5
(best situatiion). Participaants answered
d questions asssessing sociaal identification (e.g., “I iddentify
with East Germans”),
G
resentment (e.g
g., “Being facced daily withh the situationn of the East G
Germans
one can onlly become ann
noyed”), and collective eff
fficacy (e.g., ““We East Gerrmans can chaange the
relation to the
t West Germ
mans by our own
o effort”). Three items were used to assess each oof these
variables.
mmendey (20002) had threee items for inddividual
To measuree individual sttrategies, Kesssler and Mum
mobility (e.g., “I make any
a effort to be
b consideredd as West Germ
man”). For reecategorizatioon at a
higher level they calculaated the differrence betweenn two items (““I regard mysself as Germaan” and “I
regard myself as East Geerman”). Sociial competitioon was assesssed on three ittems (e.g., “W
We will
show the West
W Germanss that we are the
t more efficcient Germans”) as was reaalistic compettition
(e.g., “If neew jobs arise in
i the next fiv
ve years, we E
East Germanss will have too make sure thhat these
jobs will bee established in
i East Germany rather thaan in West Geermany”). Keessler and Muummendey
took the diffference betw
ween two item
ms to measure re-evaluationn of the materrial or econom
mic
dimension (“The
(
East Germans consiider economicc wealth as: uundesirable-deesirable” and “The
West Germ
mans consider economic weealth as: undeesirable-desiraable” both onn 5-point scalees).
Similarly, preference
p
of temporal com
mparisons wa s measured by taking the ddifference bettween two
items (“Acccording to your opinion, ho
ow importantt is it for Eastt Germans to compare them
mselves
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 51
w
with the situatiion before thee unification?”; “According
g to your opinnion, how im
mportant is it ffor the
East Germans to compare th
hemselves with West Germ
mans?”). Theyy explained thhat higher num
mbers
inndicated stron
nger preferencce for that straategy.
W
With respect to
o high and low
w status, Kesssler and Mum
mmendey (20002) found thaat for group sttatus,
ovver 80% of paarticipants ratted West Germ
mans as being
g superior to East Germanns, whereas thhe
reemaining partticipants rated
d the two grou
ups as being equal.
e
Very feew participannts rated East
G
Germans as beeing superior to
t West Germ
mans. Over the four measurrements, therre was a margginally
siignificant incrrease in the nu
umber of partticipants ratin
ng East and W
West Germanss being equal in
sttatus. Means for
f the variab
bles in the model were subm
mitted to a reppeated-measuures ANOVA
A to
exxamine wheth
her the meanss changed oveer time and whether the ch anges were liinear, quadrattic, or
cuubic. All chan
nges were lineear unless oth
herwise noted
d. The results showed that E
East Germanss
peerceived increeases in their material grou
up status, stattus stability, aand status legiitimacy, sugggesting
thhat they believ
ve their materrial situation improved
i
and
d that the inteergroup relatioons were secuure
(i.e., stable and
d legitimate), so further im
mprovements in
i status may be slow or unnlikely to occcur. In
adddition, there were decreasses in both ideentification with
w East Germ
mans and reseentment towaard the
inntergroup relaationship. Forr perceived co
ollective efficaacy, there weere significantt changes oveer the
coourse of the study (cubic trrend). In term
ms of preferences for collecctive strategiees, both sociall and
reealistic compeetition decreaased over timee. None of thee other identitty strategies cchanged over time,
exxcept for re-evaluation of material
m
dimeension (cubic trend).
K
Kessler and Mummendey (2
2002) also conducted trait--state analysees, which invoolves decompposing
vaariables into trait
t
(stable diifferences am
mong participaants) and statee (fluctuatingg variance duee
siituation influeences of meassurement erro
or) componentts. The correllations betweeen the trait
coomponents sh
howed that ideentification iss positively co
orrelated withh resentment aand stability, and
neegatively corrrelated with permeability
p
and
a individuaal strategies (i .e., mobility aand
reecategorizatio
on). Results allso showed reesentment was correlated w
with all sociosstructural varriables
annd collective strategies. Th
here was an asssociation bettween identifi
fication and reesentment. Thhe
coorrelations aree presented in
n Table 7.
T
Table 7. Corrrelations be
etween traitt componen
nts of the S
SIT-and-RDT
T model. (Ke
essler
and Mu
ummendey, 2002, p. 83
3)
Inn terms of thee effectivenesss of identity management
m
strategies,
s
botth trait and sttate componennts
inndicated that, for almost alll strategies, th
here was no evidence
e
that they had posiitive effects. T
There
w
was some evid
dence showing
g that recategorization as Germans
G
was associated w
with more posiitive
peerceptions of group materiial status. How
wever, this asssociation didd not show anyy long-term bbenefits.
Paage 52
Humanssystems®
In general, the dynamicss between traiit and state coomponents didd not fit Kesssler and Mum
mmendey’s
(2002) hypo
othesized seq
quential proceess predicted bby SIT and R
RDT. In additiion, there wass no
evidence from the analyses for the ex
xpected relatioons between vvariables. Theese findings cchallenge
the assumptions of SIT and
a RDT, wh
hich suggest thhat the psychoological process of selectinng an
identity maanagement strategy is lineaar and sequenttial. Instead, tthe findings pprovide suppoort for
parallel pro
ocesses, in wh
hich people haave a stable configuration of beliefs. In the intergrouup context,
the belief sy
ystem may in
nclude variablles, such as peerceptions abbout the statuss structure, grroup
identificatio
on, and preferrences for ideentity manageement strategiies. Kessler aand Mummenddey’s
research suggests that th
he representatiion of these vvariables overrlaps with eacch other so thaat changes
in one variaable (e.g., gro
oup permeabillity) may prom
mote changess in other variiables (e.g., leevel of
ingroup ideentification, sttrategy preferrence). Thereffore, the variaables are not structured in such a way
that presum
mes a specific order in whicch the variablles influence oone another, bbut rather theey represent
a belief system that conssists of severaal distinct dim
mensions that mutually inflluence each oother.
V
(2002) also examined the impact of all three sociostrructural belieefs and
Boen and Vanbeselaere
how these affected
a
low status
s
group members’
m
respponse to a neegative social identity. Based on SIT,
they expectted an interaction between permeabilityy and stabilityy and betweenn permeabilityy and
legitimacy for strategic management
m
choice. Howeever, social m
mobility may nnot always bee an option
or even dessired, and low
w status memb
bers may be eespecially unliikely to acceppt their inferioor status
when statuss relations aree unstable and
d illegitimate.. As such, theey argued thatt an interactioon should
occur amon
ng all three so
ociostructural variables.
To test their hypotheses,, Boen and Vaanbeselaere (22002) used a 2 (legitimacyy: legitimate vvs.
illegitimatee) × 2 (stabilitty: stable vs. unstable)
u
× 2 (permeabilityy: permeable vs. impermeaable) × 2
(individual ability feedback: high vs. low) betweenn-subjects dessign. Participants were stuudents
from primaary school classes (ages 11-12) in variouus primary schools in Flannders, Belgium
m. Each
class was raandomly assig
gned to one leevel of each iindependent vvariable. Studdents participaated
during theirr regular classs times and were
w instructedd to work on their own. Thhey were giveen the
impression that they werre competing with anotherr class to test a computer prrogram that w
was being
developed by
b a universitty professor. Participants
P
w
were told thatt the class witth the highest score on
an empathy
y test would be
b evaluating and providingg feedback onn the program
m, which was described
as a pleasan
nt task. All off the participaants were toldd that their claass performedd worse on thee empathy
test comparred to the otheer class, and were
w thereforre the lower sttatus group.
Boen and Vanbeselaere
V
(2002) manip
pulated the thrree sociostrucctural beliefs as well as peerformance
ability. To manipulate
m
leegitimacy, parrticipants werre told either the other classs followed thhe same
testing proccedures as theey did (legitim
mate) or the oother class hadd an opportunnity to work
collaborativ
vely because the
t test admin
nistrators leftt the classroom
m for a few m
minutes (illegiitimate).
To manipullate stability, participants were
w told thatt there was a bbig differencee between thee scores
from their class
c
and the other
o
class, an
nd that it is v ery likely thaat the classes w
would attain similar
scores if theey were to do
o the test again
n the next dayy. The test addministrator laabelled the diifference
as “unchang
geable” and wrote
w
the worrd on the blacck board. In thhe unstable coondition, participants
were told th
hat there was a small differrence betweenn the scores oof the two claasses, and thatt if they
were to do the test again
n the following day, their class could scoore higher thaan the other cclass. The
test adminisstrator labelleed the differen
nce as “changgeable” and w
wrote the wordd on the blackk board.
For permeaability, low staatus students were told thaat the high staatus students w
would be willling to
accept students from theeir group, if th
hey did well oon a retest of tthe empathy ttest. The expeerimenter
wrote on th
he board that the
t other class was “open”” (i.e., permeaable) for thosee who scored high on
the retest. In the imperm
meable conditiion, low statuus students weere told that thhe high statuss class
would not be
b willing to accept
a
any members from their class regardless of thheir performannce on the
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 53
reetest. The exp
perimenter wrrote on the board that the other
o
class waas “closed” foor those who sscored
hiigh on the retest. The studeents in each class
c
were ran
ndomly assignned to receivee high or low
inndividual ability feedback. In the high ability
a
conditio
on, the word “good” was w
written on theeir test,
w
whereas in the low ability condition, the word “weak”” was written on their test. The commennts
w
were intended to communiccate to particip
pants whetherr they were suuited or not suuited to judgee the
prrogram respecctively.
B
Boen and Vanb
beselaere (2002) presented
d participants with five posssible responsses (identity
m
management sttrategies) to the
t situation, including:
i
x
x
x
x
x
Individ
dual normativve action: Stu
udents can ask
k to do an inddividual retestt of the empatthy test
(using a similar butt different testt) for an oppo
ortunity to joinn the high staatus group. (T
Then
the perrmeability maanipulation was
w presented to students.)
Collecctive normativve action: Stu
udents can req
quest their enttire class to doo a retest of thhe
empath
hy test and try
y to perform better
b
the oth
her class, so thhat they can juudge the com
mputer
prograam.
Individ
dual nonnorm
mative action: Students can
n sign a prepaared personal pprotest letter stating
that they should be included in th
he high statuss group withoout doing anotther individuaal
retest. This was presented as non
nnormative by
y telling studeents that univversity professsors
would not be pleaseed with this op
ption becausee it goes againnst the rules. However, stuudents
have chosen
c
to do th
his in the past and were su
uccessful.
Collecctive nonnorm
mative action: Students can
n sign a preparred collectivee protest letterr
stating
g that their claass should jud
dge the compu
uter program instead of thee other class.
Similaar to individuaal nonnormatiive action, theey were told tthat this actioon was againsst the
rules but
b has been successful
s
in the
t past.
Accepttance: Studen
nts can acceptt the result of the test and aacknowledge that they wouuld not
be judg
ging the comp
puter program
m.
Paarticipants ressponded to fo
our items as manipulation
m
checks
c
(all off these were eeffective). Theey also
raated the exten
nt to which theey experiencee relative grou
up deprivationn (e.g., “I havve been unjusstly
trreated in comp
parison with other
o
pupils of
o my class”).. Finally, ingrroup bias wass measured byy
assking studentss to do a mon
netary division
n task by allo
ocating funds to their own cclass and to thhe
otther class as a reward for th
heir cooperattion up to the current pointt in the study.
Foor the response alternativee, both individ
dual and colleective nonnorm
mative actionn were combinned
innto a single faactor of nonno
ormative actio
on. Boen and Vanbeselaeree’s (2002) annalysis of studdents’
reesponse options using lineaar modelling showed that there
t
was a siignificant maiin effect for aall four
inndependent vaariables. Thosse in the perm
meable conditiion were morre likely to chhoose individuual
noormative actio
on, accepted the
t results, an
nd were less likely
l
to chooose collective normative annd
noonnormative action compaared to particiipants in the im
mpermeable condition. Aggain, perceptiions of
peermeability motivate
m
indiv
viduals to swittch groups in an effort to aadvance their social status. Those
inn the unstable condition weere more likelly to choose collective
c
norrmative actionn and less likeely to
chhoose individ
dual normativee action comp
pared to thosee in the stablee condition. T
There was no
diifference betw
ween stability
y conditions fo
or the other tw
wo response aalternatives. P
Participants inn the
illlegitimate con
ndition were somewhat mo
ore likely to pick
p collectiv e nonnormatiive action andd less
likkely to accept the results compared
c
to th
hose in the leegitimate conddition. And participants in the
illlegitimate con
ndition showeed more ingro
oup bias than those in the llegitimate conndition. Theree were
noo differences between the two
t condition
ns for the otheer two responnse alternativees. Finally, thhose in
thhe high ability
y condition were
w more likeely to pick ind
dividual norm
mative action aand less likelyy to
piick collectivee normative an
nd nonnormattive action co
ompared to paarticipants in tthe low abilitty
Paage 54
Humanssystems®
condition. There
T
was alsso a main effeect of ability. High ability sstudents displlayed more inngroup
bias than th
hose with low
w ability. No differences
d
weere observed for acceptancce. Using logiistic
regression, Boen and Vaanbeselaere allso tested wheether feelingss of relative ggroup deprivattion
mediated th
he relation bettween legitim
macy (based oon manipulatioon check item
m) and collecttive
nonnormatiive action and
d the relation between legittimacy (basedd on manipulation check ittem) and
ingroup biaas. The resultss showed thatt relative grouup deprivationn mediated booth relations.
Boen and Vanbeselaere’
V
s (2002) find
dings show thaat the sociostrructural variaables do not innteract to
predict low
w status group members’ prreference for iidentity manaagement strategies. Insteadd, they
seem to hav
ve an additivee rather than an
a interactivee effect.
Table 8 sum
mmarizes the findings of th
hose studies th
that examinedd together all three sociostrructural
beliefs and the ensuing identity
i
manaagement strateegies.
Table 8.. Summary of research
h combining
g all three s
sociostructu
ural dimens
sions in
relation to identity ma
anagement s
strategies.
Reference
Outccome
Management strategy
Kessler & Mum
mmendey
(2002)
Ͳ Inggroup identificationn is more likely to predict the use off social mobility
thaan is perceived peermeability.
Ͳ Peermeability is negaatively associated with ingroup identtification,
ressentment, realisticc competition, re-eevaluation of compparison dimensionns,
and perceived stabillity and positively associated with thheir group’s materrial
staatus within the Easst German populaation.
Ͳ Peerceived stability of
o the social structuure is positively reelated to ingroup
ideentification and ressentment and neggatively associatedd with social
moobility and superorrdinate recategorizzation.
Ͳ Thhe perception of a legitimate social sstructure is negativvely associated
witth resentment andd realistic competittion and positivelyy associated with
maaterial group status.
Ͳ Thhe relationship betw
ween the sociostrructural dimensionns and managemeent
strrategies are not linnear.
Superordinaate
recategorizaation
(Individual m
mobility)
Ͳ Meembers of low stattus groups that peerceived the groupp boundaries to bee
peermeable were moore likely to employy individual normaative action and
accceptance and lesss likely to employ collective normati ve action and
noonnormative actionn than those who pperceived the bouundaries to be
impermeable.
Ͳ Meembers of low stattus groups are moore likely to choosee collective
noormative action andd less likely to chooose individual noormative action
whhen status relationns are perceived too be unstable.
Ͳ Meembers of low stattus group are morre likely to accept their status when
thee status structure is legitimate.
Ͳ Illeegitimate social strructures are moree likely than legitim
mate social
strructures to lead to collective non-noormative action andd ingroup bias andd
theese effects are meediated by percepttions of relative grroup deprivation.
Ͳ Soociostructural variaables have an addditive rather than innteractive effect on
choice of managemeent strategy.
Individual noormative
action, indivvidual nonnormative action
mobility)
(Individual m
Boen & Vanbesselaere
(2002)
4.5
Temporal coomparison,
Re-evaluatioon of
comparison dimension
(Social Creaativity)
Social comppetition,
realistic com
mpetition
(Social competition)
Collective noormative
action, colleective nonnormative action (Social
competition))
Acceptance
Su
ummary
Overall, thee research ind
dicates that high status grouups find unstaable conditionns more threaatening
and are morre likely to reespond to thesse conditions in a defensivve manner. Foor example, thhey are
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 55
likkely to increaase their opiniion of the ing
group, while decreasing
d
theeir opinions oof the outgrouup.
Iddentity manag
gement strateg
gies, such as defensive
d
hellping, help higgh status grouups reinforce the
sttatus quo. On the other han
nd, when low status groupss perceive thee status structuure as unstable, they
viiew this situattion as an opp
portunity to challenge the status
s
structur
ure to further ttheir standingg. Low
sttatus groups might
m
invoke ingroup bias for example to
t mobilize thheir group in an effort to im
mprove
thheir social stattus. Low statu
us groups perrceive stable conditions
c
as threatening, bbut still may select
grroup mobilizaation as an ideentity manageement strateg
gy since there is little to losse in trying too
im
mprove their social
s
standin
ng.
Sttatus structurees that are perrceived to be legitimate arre less threatenning to both hhigh and low status
grroups. Low sttatus groups are
a more acceepting of a staatus structure as legitimate when the higgh
sttatus group co
ompares moree favourably on
o domains th
hat are importtant to the staatus structure.. When
sttatus structuree is illegitimate, however, low
l status gro
oups elect grooup mobilizattion as an identity
m
management sttrategy, favou
uring their ow
wn group. Hig
gh status grouups are likely to distance
thhemselves fro
om their group
p (e.g., by sho
owing outgrou
up favouritism
m), if they feeel that the stattus
sttructure is illeegitimate.
W
When status sttructures are believed
b
to bee permeable, high
h
status grroup memberss act in a defeensive
m
manner (e.g., showing
s
ingro
oup bias, focu
using on subg
groups rather tthan superorddinate groups,, etc.).
Low status gro
oup members who believe the boundariees between grroups are perm
meable will liikely
leeave their grou
up and join a higher group
p, but only if they
t
weakly iidentify with ttheir group. H
Highly
iddentified mem
mbers of low status
s
groups are likely to remain
r
loyal to their groupp regardless oof the
exxpected utility
y of joining a higher statuss group. Thosse who are nott highly identtified with theeir
inngroup are lik
kely to use ind
dividual strateegies to impro
ove their situaation under peermeable
coonditions.
Paage 56
Humanssystems®
5. How do
o socio
ostructtural be
eliefs - stability,
le
egitima
acy, an
nd perm
meabillity - in
nfluenc
ce
in
ntergro
oup pe
erceptio
ons? ((4.7.4)
This chapteer explores ho
ow individuals’ perceptionns of the legitiimacy and staability of the sstatus
structure an
nd beliefs abo
out the permeaability of grouup boundariees influence peerceptions off their own
group and other
o
groups. It should be pointed
p
out thhat there weree not many arrticles specificcally
examining the relationsh
hips between the sociostrucctural beliefs and intergrouup perceptionns.
Following a similar struccture as the previous chaptter, research iis organized aaccording to eeach
sociostructu
ural belief and
d its influencee on intergrouup perceptionns. We begin w
with researchh focusing
on perceptions of stabilitty.
5.1
Stability and
d Intergro
oup Perce ptions
There is som
me evidence that
t perceptio
ons of stability
ty shape interggroup perceptions. For exaample,
Vezzali, An
ndrighetto, Trrifiletti, and Visintin
V
(20122) examined tthe effect of inngroup identiification
on explicit and implicit intergroup
i
atttitudes, and w
whether this efffect is moderrated by perceptions of
status stabillity. There is evidence thatt status stabiliity moderatess the link betw
ween identificcation and
ingroup biaas (Doosje, Sp
pears, Ellemers, 2002). Speecifically, low
w status mem
mbers who higghly
identify witth their ingrou
up tend to perrceive both thhe ingroup annd outgroup ass homogenouus when
social status is seen as am
menable to ch
hange. Vezzaali et al. exam
mined perceptions of the rellation
between tw
wo nonconflicttual groups (IItalians and A
Americans) froom the perspeective of mem
mbers of
the low stattus group, i.e.., Italians6. Th
hey argued thhat current chaanges in the ppolitical and eeconomic
situation may lead peoplle to think thaat the internattional status hhierarchy migght change, whhich may
influence th
heir attitudes toward other countries. Buut because theese two groupps are nonconnflictual,
Vezzali et al.
a thought thaat this may en
nhance the sallience of equality social noorms, makingg it more
difficult to express preju
udiced attitudees. Instead, peeople in noncconflictual arrrangements, tthey
argued, may
y be more lik
kely to engagee in ingroup eenhancement rrather than ouutgroup deroggation.
Vezzali and
d colleagues (2012)
(
specifiically exploreed explicit andd implicit attiitudes. With rrespect to
the former, they predicteed that stronger ingroup iddentification w
would be assoociated with ggreater
ingroup biaas, but this rellation would be
b moderatedd by social staability. They ppredicted thatt ingroup
bias would be stronger when
w
status was
w perceived to be unstablle compared tto a control coondition in
which the stability
s
of gro
oup status is not
n mentionedd. But this biaas was expectted to be drivven
specifically
y by ingroup enhancement
e
rather than ouutgroup deroggation. Similaarly, for impllicit
attitudes, Vezzali
V
et al. expected
e
that the relation bbetween ingrooup identificaation and bias would be
stronger wh
hen status is unstable
u
comp
pared to a conntrol condition. However, tthey hypothesized that
this effect would
w
be driv
ven by both in
ngroup enhanccement and ooutgroup deroogation, as it w
would be
more difficult to control expressions of
o prejudice iin implicit meeasures as passt research suuggests
(Devine, Pllant, & Blair, 2001; Nosek
k, 2005, 2007;; cited in Vezzzali et al.).
6
Past researcch has shown Itaalians as a lowerr status group coompared to Ameericans (see Aleexander, Brewerr, &
Livingstone, 2005;
2
cited in Veezzali et al, 2012).
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 57
To test their hy
ypotheses, Veezzali et al. (2
2012) asked undergraduate
u
e students at thhe Universityy of
Paadova to participate in a sttudy about atttitudes related
d to media com
mmunicationn. They first
coompleted meaasures of natio
onal identificcation (Capozza, Brown, A
Aharpour, & F
Falvo, 2006; ccited in
V
Vezzali et al.) and social do
ominance orieentation adaptted for Italianns (SDO; Aielllo, Chirumboolo,
Leone, & Prattto, 2005; see Sidanius & Pratto, 1999; both
b
cited in V
Vezzali et al.)). Vezzali et
all.included SD
DO because it has been shown to influen
nce intergroupp relations (e..g., Pratto, Siddanius,
& Levin, 2006
6; cited in Vezzzali et al.).
N
Next, Vezzali and
a colleaguees (2012) rand
domly assigned participantts to one of tw
wo experimenntal
coonditions. In the
t status insttability condition, participaants read an aarticle (adapteed from The N
New
Y
York Times an
nd made to ap
ppear in the most
m popular Italian newspaaper) about thhe U.S. declinning in
thhe economic domain,
d
but also
a stated thaat several nations were on tthe rise in thee same domainn,
esspecially Italy
y. In the contrrol condition, participants read
r
an articlle unrelated too the relation
beetween the U.S. and Italy and
a discussed
d how daily ph
hysical activiity has health benefits. Theen
paarticipants co
ompleted man
nipulation check items relatted to the stattus (in)stabilitty of Americaan and
Ittalian econom
my and their sttatus in generral as well as the
t quality off the article (tto dismiss
allternative exp
planations duee to the text reead in the artiicle).
Paarticipants theen completed
d the Go/No-G
Go Associatio
on Task (GNA
AT; Nosek & Banaji, 20011, as
ciited in Vezzalli et al., 2012)), to assess im
mplicit attitud
des separately for two targeet groups. Theere
w
were four categ
gories of stim
muli used. Forr the ingroup and
a outgroupp categories, 110 Italian (e.gg.,
M
Marco, Anna) and 10 English (e.g., Keviin, Abbey) typ
pical names w
were used, booth categories
m
matched on typ
picality and word
w
length. For
F the attribu
ute categoriess, 10 positive (e.g., peace,
ennjoyment) and
d 10 negativee (e.g., cancerr, prison) words were used,, both categorries matched on
faamiliarity and
d word length. The GNAT explored the relationship bbetween the sspeed of respoonses
too each categorry (Italian or American) when
w
paired with either possitive or negattive valence w
words
ass an indicatorr of implicit atttitudes.7 Vezzzali et al. then had particippants complette explicit meeasures
off ingroup and
d outgroup evaaluations on five
f semantic differential sscales (e.g.,
unndesirable/desirable) on a 7-point scale with 1 repressenting the neegative pole, 7 representingg the
poositive pole, and
a 4 represen
nting “neitherr/nor”. The items were agggregated for ingroup and
ouutgroup evalu
uations separaately. Finally,, participants completed a ssocial desirabbility measuree
addapted for thee Italian conteext (Manganeelli, Rattazzi, Canova, and Marcorin, 20000; cited in V
Vezzali
ett al.).
V
Vezzali et al.’ss (2012) prelim
minary analyses on the maanipulation chheck items inddicated that thhe
m
manipulation of
o status (in)sttability was effective.
e
In ad
ddition, theree were no diffferences betw
ween
coonditions for perceptions of
o status and the
t quality off the article, suuch that both conditions raated
Ittalians as lower in status th
han American
ns and had equ
uivalent qualiity ratings. Exxplicit ingrouup bias
w
was calculated
d by subtractin
ng the outgrou
up evaluation
n from the inggroup evaluatiion. The ingrooup
w
was evaluated more positiveely than the outgroup
o
on th
his measure.
TThe GNAT used in this study had four critical bloocks, which weree randomly pressented to particippants. At the top of the
sccreen in each bloock, two target-laabels were show
wn in the upper leeft and right of thhe screen to rem
mind participantss of the
caategories they shhould be thinkingg about. In the experimental blocck, the four targeets were: Italian names + positivve
woords, Italian nam
mes + negative words,
w
American names + positivve words, and A
American names + negative wordds.
Paarticipants were presented with stimuli
s
in the midddle of the screeen and asked to press the spaceebar (Go) as quickly as a
poossible if the stim
muli belonged to the categories at
a the top of the screen (signal), or to do nothingg (No-go) for stim
muli that
beelonged to other categories.
7
Paage 58
Humanssystems®
For implicit attitudes, a sensitivity
s
ind
dex (d’) basedd on signal deetection theorry (Green & S
Swets, 1966;
cited in Vezzzali et al., 20
012) was com
mputed for eacch experimenntal block, andd then the sennsitivity
scores weree submitted to
o a 2 (Target-concept: Italiian vs. Ameriican) × 2 (Attrribute: Positivve vs.
Negative) repeated
r
meassures ANOVA
A. A significaant interactionn emerged annd simple effeects tests
indicated th
hat Italians weere associated
d with more ppositive than nnegative wordds. In contrasst, Americans
were associiated with mo
ore negative th
han positive w
words. Three indices were computed froom the
sensitivity scores:
s
ingrou
up evaluation
n (difference inn d’s betweenn Italian-positive and Italiaan-negative
blocks), outtgroup evaluaation (differen
nce in d’s bettween Americcan-positive aand Americann-negative
blocks), and
d ingroup biaas (difference between ingrroup and outggroup evaluatiion indices).
Hierarchicaal regression was
w used to teest Vezzali ett al.’s (2012) main hypotheeses, with thee
experimenttal conditions, identificatio
on, and SDO aas predictors, with explicitt and implicit ingroup
and outgrou
up evaluation
ns and ingroup
p bias as the ddependent varriables, and soocial desirabiility as a
covariate. For
F explicit atttitudes, the reesults showedd that particippants with stroonger identifiication
evaluated th
heir ingroup more
m
positiveely and showeed more ingrooup bias. No oother significaant effects
were observ
ved. Thereforre, the data paartially suppoorted their firsst hypothesis, such that thee relation
between ideentification an
nd ingroup biias and was ddriven by ingrroup enhancem
ment. Howevver, this
effect was not
n moderated
d by status (in
n)stability. Foor implicit atttitudes, the results showed that there
was a significant interaction between identificationn and experim
mental conditiion for evaluaation of
the outgrou
up. Tests of simple slopes (see
(
Figure 9)) indicated thaat in the statuus instability ccondition,
participantss’ outgroup ev
valuation decreased with hhigher ingroupp identificatioon, whereas thhe effect
was not reliiable in the co
ontrol conditiion, providingg support for their second hhypothesis.
Figure 9.
9 Interactio
on between Identificatio
on × Experiimental con
ndition. Dep
pendent
variable:
v
im
mplicit outgrroup evalua
ation. (Vezzzali et al., 20
012, p. 37) 8
The finding
gs for explicitt attitudes rev
veal that whenn individuals hhighly identiffy with a grouup, and in
this case, Ittalians identiffying with a lo
ow status grouup, they tendded to show m
more positive iingroup
evaluationss and ingroup bias regardleess of the stabbility of the sttatus structuree. Low status group
8
High and low
w scores of identtification are preesented at one sttandard deviatioon above and beelow the mean.
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 59
m
members, thereefore, may prromote ingrou
up identificatiion through inngroup enhanncement ratheer
ouutgroup derog
gation. In con
ntrast, for imp
plicit attitudess, when the sttatus structuree was unstablee and
w
when participaants identified
d more strongly with their ingroup,
i
theyy engaged in m
more intergrooup
coompetition by
y derogating the
t outgroup. To the extentt that stabilityy is usually coorrelated withh
leegitimacy (seee Bettencourt et al., 2001), this finding is
i consistent w
with the preddictions of SIT
T in
w
which low stattus groups aree more likely to engage in intergroup
i
coompetition whhen the status
sttructure is unsstable, and thaat this would be especially
y likely for thoose who stronngly identify with
thheir ingroup. Taken
T
togetheer, the stabilitty of the statu
us structure caan have differrential effectss on
booth explicit an
nd implicit in
ntergroup percceptions.
Table 9 provid
des a summary
y of the findin
ngs pertaining
g to perceptioons of sociostr
tructural stabiility
nt intergroup perceptions.
p
annd subsequen
Table 9. Summary of
o Intergrou
up Perceptio
ons in Resp
ponse to So
ociostructurral
Stability
y
Reeference
Outcome
Veezzali, Andrighettoo,
Trrifiletti, & Visintin
(2012)
5
5.2
Ͳ Status stability
s
has no impact on explicit ingroup bias and peerceptions
when people are highly iddentified with theirr ingroup.
Ͳ Particippants who are strongly identified withh their group perceeive the
ingroupp more positively and
a show more inggroup bias on expllicit measures
of attitudes.
s
is unstable, people who strongly identify with thheir ingroup
Ͳ When status
exhibit more implicit outgroup derogation compared
c
to thosee who do not
stronglyy identify with theirr ingroup.
Ͳ Status stability
s
has differeential effects on im
mplicit and explicit measures of
intergrooup attitudes.
Intergroup Perceeptions
Ingroup bias
Outgroup derogaation
Legittimacy an
nd Intergro
oup Perce
eptions
O
Other research
h looked at thee impact of so
ociostructurall beliefs regarrding legitimaacy of status
diifferences on intergroup peerceptions. Weber,
W
Mumm
mendey, and W
Waldzus (20022) hypothesizzed that
peerceptions of legitimacy deepend on how
w individuals perceive the rrelative protootypicality of the
inngroup for thee inclusive cattegory. The prototype
p
of th
he inclusive ccategory provvides a standaard
aggainst which to
t compare su
ubgroups. As such, subgro
oups that are ccharacteristic of the inclusiive
caategory shoulld be evaluateed positively, whereas subg
groups that arre less characteristic shouldd be
evvaluated negaatively. Addittionally, differrences in prottotypicality shhould substanntiate differennt
enntitlements (W
Wenzel, in preess; cited in Weber
W
et al., 2002).
2
Acrosss three studiess, Weber et all. test
w
whether relativ
ve prototypicaality influencees perceptions of legitimaccy and whether the valencee of the
prrototype mod
derates the efffect.
Inn Weber et al..’s (2002) firsst study, participants were students from
m universities in Germany..
Traditionally, a university education
e
is reegarded as mo
ore prestigiouus than an appplied educatioon.
H
However, with
h companies requiring
r
emp
ployees with more
m
applied education and an interest iin
prromoting and
d expanding Polytechnic
P
scchools, status differences bbetween univeersities and
poolytechnic sch
hools are becoming more and
a more unsstable. Weberr and colleaguues recruited
B
Business Administration (B
B.A.) students from the Uniiversity of Jenna to take parrt in the studyy.
Seenior studentss (those in thee 3rd to 5th yeaar of the prog
gram) were re cruited to enssure that theyy would
exxperience suffficient ingrou
up identificatiion, and only those who inndicated in a ppre-test that thhey
peerceived haviing high ingro
oup status werre included in
n the analysess.
Paage 60
Humanssystems®
Participantss completed a questionnairre that asked tthem the exteent to which thhey agreed w
with the
statement “independent
“
of whether it is justified orr not, graduattes with a B.A
A. degree from
ma
university generally
g
have higher presttige than gradduates with a B.A. degree from a polyteechnic
school” to assess
a
their peerception of status
s
differennces. To assesss relative proototypicality, Weber et
al. (2002) asked
a
particip
pants to come up with four characteristiccs that were tyypical of B.A
A.
university students
s
relatiive to B.A. po
olytechnic stuudents, and similarly, four characteristiccs that
were typicaal of B.A. poly
ytechnic relattive to B.A. uuniversity studdents. Then thhey rated how
w typical
the characteeristics were of
o B.A. studeents in generaal.9 Next, percceived legitim
macy was meaasured by
asking partiicipants to ind
dicate their ag
greement on ffour statemennts (e.g., “I thhink it is justiffied that
B.A. graduaates from the University have a higher pprestige than B.A. graduattes from the
Polytechnicc School”). Th
hen, participaants indicatedd the extent too which they w
would feel guuilty about
comparing themselves with
w outgroup members on two items (e.g., “I feel guuilty when I coompare
p
with
h that of the Polytechnic
P
ggraduates”) annd the degree of threat theyy would
our career prospects
experience if polytechnic students beccame a true thhreat to their status on onee item (“I wouuld
experience it as threatening if the Polytechnic studdents would bbecome true competitors foor us”).
Next, particcipants indicaated their interrgroup attituddes for four ddifferent conceepts each meaasured
with three items:
i
x
x
x
x
sym
mpathy (e.g., “I like B.A. students
s
from
m the Polytechhnic School”);;
reaadiness to con
ntact (e.g., “I think
t
it is impportant to havve contact witth B.A. studennts from
the Polytechnic School”);
selff-observed beehaviour (e.g., “If I talk to somebody wh
who has sentim
ments against the
Pollytechnic Sch
hool I usually defend the Poolytechnic stuudents”); andd
toleerance (e.g., “In
“ their diffeerences B.A. sstudents from
m the Universiity and from tthe
Pollytechnic Sch
hool complem
ment each otheer very well”)).
Finally, parrticipants indiicated their leevel of identiffication with ttheir ingroup on three item
ms (e.g., “I
identify witth B.A. studen
nts that study
y at the Univeersity”) and w
with their incluusive group oon two
items (e.g., “I identify with
w B.A. stud
dents in generaal”).
Results from
m Weber et al.
a (2002) show
wed that partiicipants perceeived their inggroup status tto be more
prestigious than B.A. stu
udents from a polytechnic school and iddentified withh both B.A. unniversity
students and B.A. studen
nts in general. Consistent w
with the reseaarchers’ hypottheses, protottypicality
was positiv
vely associated
d with perceiv
ved legitimaccy of being inn a high statuss position, inddicating
that the more participantts thought thaat their ingrouup was the typpical B.A. stuudent relative to B.A.
polytechnicc students, thee more they believed
b
that ttheir higher sttatus was legiitimate. The rresearchers
also found that
t perceptio
ons of legitim
macy was negaatively associiated with guiilt and attitudees toward
the outgrou
up, and positiv
vely associateed with feelinngs of threat. C
Consequentlyy, when particcipants
perceived th
heir higher sttatus to be mo
ore legitimate, the less guillty they felt abbout the sociaal
comparison
n, the more neegative attitud
des they expreessed toward the outgroupp, and the lesss
threatened they
t
felt by th
he outgroup.
Weber et all. (2002) cond
ducted a path analysis and found that reelative prototyypicality posittively
predicted leegitimacy, and
d in turn, legiitimacy was nnegatively rellated to interggroup attitudes,
consistent with
w the correelational findiings. Similarlyy, relative proototypicality also indirectly
Prototypicality was computeed by summing thhe scores for thee ingroup attribuutes, summing thhe scores of the outgroup
attributions, and then subtractting the second sum from the firrst sum.
9
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 61
prredicted guilt and threat viia legitimacy. Finally, neith
her prototypiccality, guilt, nnor threat, dirrectly
prredicted intergroup attitudees (see Figuree 10).
Figure 10. A path-analytic model, with proto
otypicality a
as exogenous variable and
legitimacy, threat, guilt, and interrgroup attitu
udes as end
dogenous v
variables. (F
From
Webe
er, Mummen
ndey, and Waldzus,
W
200
02, p. 456)
Evidence from
m Weber et al.’s (2002) first study suggeested that percceptions of reelative
prrototypicality
y are associateed with percep
ptions of legitimacy. Furthhermore, percceptions of
leegitimacy are associated with different outcomes,
o
succh as intergrooup attitudes aand emotions.
H
However, they
y argued that the
t relation beetween protottypicality andd legitimacy sshould only be
obbserved when
n the inclusivee category (i.ee., B.A. studeents in generaal) is evaluateed positively. This
w
was expected because
b
being
g similar to a comparison standard
s
shouuld only be poositive if that
coomparison staandard is judg
ged positively
y. Therefore, individuals
i
caan only justify
fy a high statuus
poosition if the group is view
wed as prototy
ypical of a positive inclusivve category aand that categoory is
im
mportant to th
heir identity. To
T examine th
his, Weber et al. manipulatted the valencce of the incluusive
caategory in Stu
udy 2.
The intergroup
p context for their
t
second study
s
involved
d Germans ass the ingroup,, Poles as the
ouutgroup, and Europeans ass the inclusivee category. Po
oles were seleected as the ouutgroup becauuse
thhey are Germaany’s direct neighbours,
n
making
m
them a salient and rrelevant outgrroup. As welll,
reesearch has co
onsistently sh
hown that Gerrmans perceiv
ve Germany too hold a highher status posiition
thhan Poland wiithin Europe (no
( references provided by
y Weber et al.., 2002). Furtthermore, at thhe time
thhe study was conducted,
c
Po
oland was parrt of Europe but
b not the Euuropean Unionn. It remainedd a
poossibility thatt Poland woulld become a member
m
of thee European U
Union in the fu
future. Particippants
w
were from a German univerrsity and valen
nce of the incclusive categoory was manippulated by asking
paarticipants to think about either
e
positivee or negative characteristic
c
cs of Europe. Then, relativee
prrototypicality
y, status, legitiimacy, intergroup attitudess, and ingroupp identificatioon were assesssed
ussing similar measures
m
as in
n Study 1, and
d the intergroup context w
was changed too include Gerrmans
annd Poles.
W
Weber et al.’s (2002) prelim
minary analyses showed thaat participantts perceived G
Germans to occcupy a
hiigher status position than Poles,
P
and theey perceived Germans
G
to b e more protottypical of Eurrope
thhan Poles. To test their maiin prediction, multiple regrression analyyses were condducted with
peerceived relattive prototypiicality, the vallence of the in
nclusive categgory, and theeir interaction as
prredictors, and
d perceived legitimacy as th
he criterion. The
T analyses revealed no ssignificant maain
efffects, but a siignificant inteeraction betw
ween the prediictors indicatiing that the reelation betweeen
prrototypicality
y and legitimaacy is dependeent on the vallence of the innclusive categgory. Simple
reegressions forr the positive and negative inclusive categories show
wed that when participants
thhought about the
t positive aspects
a
of the inclusive cateegory, perceivved relative pprototypicalityy was
asssociated with
h an increase in perceived legitimacy off status differeences (marginnally significant),
Paage 62
Humanssystems®
whereas wh
hen participan
nts thought ab
bout the negattive aspects oof the inclusivve category, pperceived
relative pro
ototypicality was
w associated
d with a decreease in perceiived legitimacy (not signifficant).
Finally, leg
gitimacy was negatively
n
co
orrelated with intergroup atttitudes, suchh that more peerceived
legitimacy of status diffeerences was associated
a
witth less positivve intergroup attitudes.
he results from
m the second study, Weberr et al. (2002)) concluded thhat high statuus
Based on th
members ju
ustify their su
uperior status when
w
they peerceive their oown group to be prototypiccal of a
positive incclusive catego
ory. However, when the in clusive category is evaluatted negativelyy, high
status mem
mbers are less likely to justiify their superrior status. Thhese findings highlight thee
importance of the valencce of the inclu
usive categoryy when makinng judgmentss about the leggitimacy
of status rellations between subgroupss.
In Study 3, Weber et al. (2002) investtigated whethher individualls’ ingroup staatus position moderated
the relation
n between relaative prototyp
picality and peerceived legittimacy. They also manipullated
prototypicaality so that th
he ingroup is either
e
high orr low in protootypicality of tthe inclusive category
compared to the outgrou
up. Weber et al.
a hypothesizzed that, for hhigh status grooups, when thheir
ingroup is more
m
prototyp
pical of the in
nclusive categgory than the outgroup, theey would percceive
status differrences as legiitimate, whereeas when the outgroup is m
more prototyppical, they woould
perceive staatus differencces as illegitim
mate. For low
w status groups, the oppositte pattern wass
predicted. When
W
the ingrroup is more prototypical oof the inclusivve category thhan the outgrroup,
status differrences should
d be perceived
d as illegitimaate, whereas w
when the outggroup is moree
prototypicaal of the inclusive category
y, status differrences shouldd be perceivedd as legitimatee. Weber
et al. prediccted that this would
w
also im
mpact intergrooup perceptioons. For high status groups,
illegitimatee status relatio
ons would be associated wiith guilt and ppositive interggroup attitudees,
whereas forr low status groups,
g
illegitiimate status rrelations woulld be associatted with angeer and less
positive inttergroup attitu
udes.
Again, stud
dents from a German
G
polyttechnic schoo l participatedd in Weber et al.’s (2002) tthird study.
They were assigned to arrtificial group
ps based on thheir performaance on tasks that assessedd their
perceptual style,
s
which categorized
c
th
hem into one of two styles: “verbalizerss” or “visualizzers”. All
participantss received falsse feedback in
ndicating thatt they were “vvisualizers” aand told that tthe two
types of perrceptual stylees structured visual
v
informaation differenntly. Participaants then com
mpleted a
second visu
ual test and were
w told that there
t
are two perceptual sttyles (“figure--based” or “ggroundbased”) and
d each subgro
oup was charaacterized diffeerently based on five charaacteristics.10
Participantss selected the set of characcteristics that tthey thought best describeed the group tto which
they belong
ged. The expeeriment was programmed
p
tto provide parrticipants withh feedback thhat
confirmed their
t
selection
n. This self-asssignment proocedure was uused to ensuree ingroup ideentification
and provideed a set of traaits to use for the prototypi cality manipuulation.
Status was manipulated by telling parrticipants thatt career prosppects were relaated to percepptual style
and that eith
her their own
n group or thee outgroup hadd a better chaance of obtainning good empployment.
Participantss were also to
old that this finding was baased on scienttific surveys aand that it waas unclear
why there is a link betweeen perceptuaal style and caareer prospeccts, but they only know thaat the two
groups diffe
fered in terms of their perso
onality traits tthat were presented earlierr in the study.. Weber et
al. (2002) manipulated
m
prototypicality
p
y by presentinng participantts with graphss of the ingrooup,
outgroup, and
a inclusive category, com
mparing how each group sccored on eachh of the 10 atttributes
There weree a total of ten atttributes. Each paarticipant was prresented with tw
wo sets of five atttributes, and thee sets of
attributes werre randomly seleected by the com
mputer. In additioon, the attributess were pretested and are equivallent on
valence.
10
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 63
annd to judge th
he status diffeerence. In the ingroup proto
otypicality coondition, 8 ouut of the 10 grraphs
shhowed that th
he inclusive caategory was more
m
similar to
t the ingroupp, whereas in the outgroup
prrototypicality
y condition, 8 out of the 10 graphs show
wed that the innclusive categgory was moree
siimilar to the outgroup.
o
Thee remaining tw
wo graphs sho
owed that thee ingroup and outgroup weere
eqquivalent on the
t two attribu
utes. Then, paarticipants weere presented with a manippulation checkk of
thhe prototypicaality manipulaation asking them
t
to indicaate which subbgroup was m
more prototypiical for
viisualizers in general.
g
W
Weber and colleagues (2002
2) then had paarticipants an
nswer four item
ms that assessed legitimaccy of
sttatus differencces. The word
ding was chan
nged to reflecct their self-asssigned ingrouup and the staatus of
thheir ingroup. Group-based
G
emotions werre assessed by
y asking partiicipants to annswer three iteems
m
measuring guillt and three items measurin
ng anger, whiich were comb
mbined into a ssingle factor.
Inntergroup attittudes were asssessed with three
t
items measuring feeliings of sympaathy, readinesss to
coontact, and co
ooperation. Th
he first two ittems were reliiable and com
mbined into a new factor.
Iddentification with
w the ingro
oup was meassured with thrree items. Idenntification wiith the inclusiive
caategory was measured
m
usin
ng similar item
ms as in the in
ngroup identiification meassure. Finally,
peerceptions of status was asssessed consissting of seven
n vertical “step
eps”, where, thhe highest steep
reepresents the best
b status po
osition and thee lowest step represents th e worst statuss position.
Paarticipants haad to assign eaach subgroup to one of thee steps, and thhe difference bbetween the
suubgroups’ status position was
w used as a manipulation
n check.
W
Weber et al. (2
2002) reported
d that the man
nipulation forr status was efffective, but tthe prototypiccality
m
manipulation did
d not have th
he intended effects,
e
such th
hat the manippulation only worked for thhe
inngroup prototy
ypicality cond
dition (i.e., paarticipants perceived their own group ass more protottypical
off the inclusivee category), but
b not for thee outgroup pro
ototypicality condition (paarticipants perrceived
thhe ingroup and the outgrou
up as equally prototypical).
p
. Because the prototypicaliity manipulattion
w
was not effectiive, analyses using
u
the man
nipulation willl not be summ
marized. Onlly the analysees using
thhe prototypicaality manipulaation check measure
m
will be
b described.
Paarticipants’ perceived prottotypicality raatings were diichotomized uusing a mediaan split. The m
main
hyypotheses weere tested usin
ng a 2-way AN
NOVA with perceived
p
proototypicality rratings and the status
m
manipulation as
a the indepen
ndent variablees and legitim
macy as the deependent variaable. The resuults
shhowed that th
here was a sign
nificant main
n effect of stattus and signifficant interacttion between status
annd prototypicality. Furtherr analyses sho
owed that high
h status groupps perceived sstatus differennces to
bee more legitim
mate when theeir ingroup was
w prototypiccal and less leegitimate wheen the outgrouup was
prrototypical (m
marginally sig
gnificant). Forr the low statu
us groups, thee findings weere reversed. T
They
peerceived statu
us differencess to be more leegitimate wheen the outgro up was prototypical and
peerceived statu
us differencess to be less leg
gitimate when
n their own grroup was prottotypical
(m
marginally sig
gnificant).11 The
T correlations between leegitimacy andd the group-based emotionns and
beetween legitim
macy and inteergroup attitudes were not supported. N
No significant correlations w
were
foound, which may
m be due to
o the artificiall nature of thee groups. Thuus, the findinggs from Webeer et
all.’s third study
y provide sup
pport that the relation betw
ween prototypiicality and leggitimacy diffe
fers for
hiigh and low status
s
groups.
When the prototypicality manipuulation was usedd as the indepenndent variable, a significant interraction between
prrototypicality andd status emergedd for only one off the four legitimaacy items. The i nteraction reveaaled that prototyppicality
afffected legitimacy evaluations for high-status grooups, but not for low status groupps. Low-status ggroups perceivedd status
diffferences as illeggitimate regardleess of perceivedd prototypicality of
o the ingroup annd outgroup.
11
Paage 64
Humanssystems®
Overall, Weber et al.’s (2002) studiess demonstratee the link betw
ween legitimaacy of status sstructure
and intergro
oup perceptio
ons. Specificaally, they foun
und that, for m
members of a hhigh status grroup, the
perceived relative protottypicality of their
t
characterristics was poositively relatted to their peerceptions
of the legitiimacy of the social
s
structure, and the m
more legitimatee they believeed the social sstructure
to be, the leess guilt they experienced about
a
the exissting structurre and the morre negative thheir
intergroup attitudes
a
weree toward outg
groups. This m
may be becauuse perceptionns of a more legitimate
social struccture also led members
m
of a high status ggroup to repoort feeling more threatenedd by lower
status group
ps potentially
y encroaching
g on this statuss. Moreover, Weber et al. found that staatus
differences are perceived
d to be legitim
mate by high status groupss when their ggroup is typicaal of a
positive incclusive catego
ory, but illegittimate when tthe category iis negative.
Major and colleagues
c
(2002) believed
d that individuuals can varyy in how muchh they endorse
legitimizing
g ideologies that
t justify ex
xisting differe nces betweenn groups, and the extent to which
these ideolo
ogies are endo
orsed can inflluence how thhey perceive iintergroup peerceptions andd
interactionss. One legitim
mizing ideolog
gy is the belieef that one cann improve theeir social stannding by
becoming part
p of a higheer status grou
up (i.e., indiviidual upward mobility). Beeliefs in indivvidual
mobility sh
hould have diffferent impliccations for how
w high and loow status grouups respond tto
ambiguous intergroup in
nteractions, beecause their ggroup memberrship can inflluence how thhey
interpret thee interaction.
Major et al.. (2002) exam
mined whetherr group statuss and endorseement of legittimizing ideollogy
predicted whether
w
indiviiduals perceiv
ved themselvees as targets oof discriminattion in an inteergroup
interaction. They examin
ned whether individuals
i
w
would attributee rejection froom an outgrouup
member to discriminatio
on. Major et al.
a argued thatt individuals w
who belong too a low statuss group
may be lesss likely to perrceive themseelves as targetts of discriminnation when tthey are rejeccted by
someone from a high staatus group. In
n fact, they maay perceive thhe response frrom the high status
individual as
a fair becausse they feel less deserving and inferior iin status. In coomparison, inndividuals
who belong
g to a high staatus group maay be more likkely to perceiive themselvees as targets oof
discriminattion because they
t
feel moree deserving annd superior too low status m
members, whiich can
make the reejection seem
m unfair. This set of predicttions is referreed to as the sttatus-legitimaacy
hypothesis.
d their predicctions in threee studies usingg different meethodologies (survey
Major et al.. (2002) tested
vs. experim
ment) and grou
ups (ethnic vss. gender grouups). In Studyy 1, they survveyed people ffrom high
status (Euro
opean Americcan) and low status (Africaan American or Latino Am
merican) ethniic groups
to examine the relation between
b
belieefs in individuual mobility aand perceptionns of personaal
discriminattion (i.e., discrimination baased on their eethnic group)). Among highh status groupp
members, th
hey found thaat the more th
hey endorsed the legitimiziing ideology, the more they reported
being targets of personall discrimination. Among loow status group members, they found thhat the
more they endorsed
e
the ideology,
i
the less they rep orted being taargets of disccrimination. T
These
findings aree consistent with
w the statuss-legitimizingg hypothesis. M
Major et al. aalso found thaat the more
low status group
g
membeers identified with
w their inggroup, the moore they perceeived personall
discriminattion, but no asssociation waas found betw
ween the two vvariables for hhigh status group
members.
d study, Majorr et al. (2002)) wanted to exxamine responses of high aand low statuus
In a second
members to
o a situation in
nvolving a rejjection by eitther an ingrouup or outgroupp member. Peerceptions
of discrimin
nation should
d be more likeely when indivviduals are reejected by an outgroup rathher than an
ingroup meember becausee status differrences are moore relevant annd status legiitimizing ideoologies
would moree likely be acttivated. Thereefore, beliefs in legitimizinng ideologiess were expecteed to
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 65
m
moderate attrib
butions to disccrimination when
w
individu
uals are rejectted by an outggroup membeer, but
noot when they are rejected by
b an ingroup
p member.
European Ameerican (high status) and Laatino Americaan (low status)) students weere invited to the
laaboratory to participate
p
in a study aboutt work group development
d
and performaance. Prior too the
seession, Majorr et al. (2002) asked them to
t complete prre-testing meeasures whichh assessed their
beeliefs in indiv
vidual mobilitty and their leevel of identiffication with ttheir ingroup. In each
exxperimental session,
s
studen
nts believed that
t they weree participatingg in the studyy with two othher
sttudents and were
w told they were seated in
i the other cu
ubicles. How
wever, this wass a fabricationn.
Paarticipants weere told that th
he three of th
hem would be working on a series of prooblem-solving tasks
inn a structured work team co
onsisting of a manager, co-manager, annd a clerk. Thee actual particcipant
w
was told that one
o of the otheer participants was random
mly assigned tto the role of the manager, who
w
would be respo
onsible for assigning the ro
oles of co-maanager and cleerk. Participannts were given
deescriptions off the co-manaager and clerk
k positions, wiith the formerr position desscribed as moore
deesirable. The experimenterr took a digitaal picture of th
he participantt and ostensibbly of the otheer two
paarticipants.
Paarticipants weere then asked
d to fill out ap
pplication maaterials that w
would be givenn to the manaager.
A
Among the maaterials, they were
w asked to
o provide som
me demographhic informatioon, which inclluded
thheir ethnicity. While the paarticipants weere waiting for the managerr’s decision, tthey were preesented
w
with the picturres of the three people who
o were in the session
s
on theeir computer screen. In thee
ouutgroup rejecction condition, the manageer and the oth
her applicant w
were the sam
me sex but diffferent
inn ethnicity relative to the acctual participant. In the ing
group rejectioon condition, the manager was
thhe same sex and ethnicity as
a the particip
pant, whereas the other appplicant was thhe same sex bbut
frrom a differen
nt ethnic grou
up than the acttual participant. All particiipants “accideentally” heardd a
coonversation between
b
the manager
m
and th
he experimen
nter over the inntercom (in aactually, this w
was
sccripted and prre-recorded). The managerr expressed to
o the experimeenter that s/hee did not feel that
thhey would hav
ve a good chaance of winnin
ng the prize with
w the actuaal participant, and then the
exxperimenter informed the actual
a
particip
pant that s/he has been ass igned to the cclerk positionn.
Paarticipants theen completed
d the primary dependent vaariable, an attrribution meassure, which asssessed
thheir belief thaat the managerr’s decision was
w discriminatory. They w
were also askeed to rate the extent
too which the manager’s
m
decision was bassed on their raace/ethnicity, manager’s peersonal preferrences,
annd aspects of their written statement fro
om their job ap
pplication.
To test the stattus-legitimacy
y hypothesis, Major et al. (2002)
(
examinned whether sstatus, rejectiion
coontext, and beeliefs in indiv
vidual mobilitty influenced attributions too discriminattion (controlliing for
paarticipants lev
vel of ingroup
p identificatio
on). Regressio
on analyses shhowed that thhere were no
siignificant maiin effects or 2-way
2
interacttions among the
t predictorss, but there w
was a significaant
thhree-way interraction. Follo
ow-up analysees showed thaat there was a different patttern of resultss for
thhe two rejectio
on conditionss (see Figure 11).
Paage 66
Humanssystems®
Figure 11. Attributio
ons to discrimination a
among high
h status (Eu
uropean Am
merican)
and low status
s
(Latin
no America
an) group m
members as a function of rejection
n context
and belief in individual mobility
m
(Stu
udy 2). (Ma
ajor et al., 20
002, p. 275)) 12
In the outgrroup rejection
n condition, greater
g
endorssement of a leegitimizing iddeology was aassociated
with more attributions
a
to
o discriminatiion among Euuropean Amerricans, but lesss attributionss among
Latino Ameerican studentts. In the ingrroup rejectionn condition, sttatus but not iideology influuenced
attributionss to discriminaation. Latino American stuudents were m
more likely too attribute the rejection
by an ingro
oup manager to
t discriminattion than Euroopean Americcans, in whichh a high statuus versus a
low status applicant
a
wass favoured resspectively.
A third stud
dy conducted by Major and
d colleagues ((2002) extendded these finddings to statuss
differences based on gen
nder rather thaan ethnicity aand to a conteext that involvves discriminaation in
one’s favou
ur. Past researrch has shown
n that beliefs in legitimizinng ideology innfluence peopple’s sense
of entitlemeent (Major, 19
994; cited in Major
M
et al). People who bbelong to a loow status grouup may
feel that theey deserve thee inferior position, where tthose who bellong to a highh status groupp may feel
that they arre entitled as a consequence of their supperior positionn. Then, for hhigh status meembers,
their belief in legitimizin
ng ideologies may preventt them from feeeling unfairlly advantagedd because
of the group
p to which they belong and
d its ensuing entitlements.
Using a sim
milar methodo
ology as in Stu
udy 2, Major et al. (2002) randomly asssigned men (hhigh
status) and women (low status) into one
o of two connditions. Onee condition waas the outgrouup
12 +
p < .10
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 67
reejection condiition which iss similar to th
he one in Stud
dy 2, and the ssecond condittion was an inngroup
seelection condiition in which
h a same-sex manager (ing
group) picks thhe participantt to be in the com
manager role rather
r
than an opposite-sex
x applicant (ou
utgroup). Sim
milar to Studyy 2, Major andd
coolleagues pred
dicted that in the outgroup
p rejection con
ndition, the m
more men endorsed legitim
mizing
iddeology, the more
m
likely th
hey would perrceive rejectio
on by an outggroup memberr as based on
diiscrimination. For women,, on the other hand, the mo
ore they endorrsed the legitiimizing ideollogy,
thhe less likely they
t
would peerceive the reejection as due to discriminnation. In the ingroup selecction
coondition, the more
m
men bellieved in the ideology,
i
the less likely thhey would attrribute an ingrroup
m
member’s deciision to discriimination, wh
hereas women
n were not exppected to show this patternn.
A
Again, Major et
e al. (2002) tested
t
the statu
us-legitimacy
y hypothesis uusing regressiion with gendder,
beelief in indiviidual mobility
y, and contextt as predictorss and attributiions to discrim
mination as thhe
crriterion (contrrolling for lev
vel of ingroup
p identificatio
on). The resultts showed thaat there was aan
efffect for conteext, such that participants were
w more lik
kely to perceiive discriminaation for outggroup
reejection comp
pared to ingro
oup selection. The three preedictors also iinteracted andd revealed a
diifferent patterrn of results for
f the two context conditio
ons. In the ouutgroup rejecttion conditionn, both
sttatus and ideo
ology influencced attribution
ns. Consisten
nt with Major et al.’s predicctions, the moore
m
men believed in
i individual mobility
m
(i.e.,, the legitimizzing ideologyy), the more liikely they perrceived
thheir rejection by a woman as
a discriminaation. Women
n showed the oopposite patteern, such thatt the
m
more they believed in the leegitimizing id
deology, the leess likely theyy perceived thheir rejection by a
m
man as discrim
mination. In th
he ingroup sellection condittion, the moree men endorsed individuall
m
mobility, the more
m
they den
nied that discrrimination waas the reason w
why a male m
manager seleccted
thhem over a wo
oman for the co-manager position,
p
and they also percceived the maanager as morre
quualified and more
m
competeent. In contrasst, for women
n, endorsemennt of the ideollogy was not
asssociated with
h perceptions of discriminaation or evalu
uations of the manager.
Taken togetherr, the findingss from Major et al.’s (2002
2) studies suppport their stattus-legitimacyy
hyypothesis. Th
heir results sho
ow the extentt to which ind
dividuals endoorse status leggitimizing
iddeologies is asssociated with
h less perceiv
ved discriminaation among m
members from
m low status ggroups,
buut is associateed with more perceived disscrimination among
a
those from high staatus groups, aafter
beeing rejected from an outg
group memberr. What is parrticularly impportant is that there were noo
efffects of ideollogy when ind
dividuals werre rejected by
y an ingroup m
member. Thiss means that
leegitimizing id
deologies are important
i
onlly in specific and relevant contexts and have differenntial
efffects on percceptions of disscrimination, depending on
n the status off the individuual who endorrses
thhose ideologiees. Finally, en
ndorsed legitimacy appearss to prevent m
members from
m high status ggroups
frrom recogniziing that they have
h
been unffairly advantaaged because of their grouup membership in
inntergroup relaations.
Table 10 summ
marizes those studies invesstigating the im
mpact of legiitimacy on inttergroup
peerceptions.
Paage 68
Humanssystems®
Table 10. Summa
ary of Interg
group Perce
eptions in R
Response to
o Sociostruc
ctural
Legitim
macy
Reference
Outco
ome
Intergroup P
Perceptions
Weber, Mummeendey, &
Waldzus (2002)
Ͳ Forr members of a higgh status group, thhe perceived relattive prototypicalityy
of their
t
characteristiccs on an inclusive category is positivvely related to theeir
perrceptions of the legitimacy of the soocial structure and the more
leggitimate they feel thhe social structuree is, the more negative their
inteergroup attitudes, and the less guilt they experience aabout the structuree.
Ͳ Perceptions of a morre legitimate sociaal structure also leead members of a
higgh status group to feel more threatenned by lower statuus groups
pottentially encroachiing on this status.
Ͳ Staatus differences arre perceived to bee legitimate by highh status groups
onlly when their group is typical of a poositive inclusive caategory, but
illegitimate when thee category is negattive.
p
a more leegitimate structuree when the ingroupp
Ͳ Higgh status groups perceive
is more
m typical of an inclusive categoryy than the outgrouup whereas low
staatus group perceive a more legitimatte structure when the outgroup is
moore typical of an incclusive category thhan the ingroup.
Prototypicality, guilt,
threat, interggroup attitudes
Major, Gramzow
w,
McCoy, Levin,
Schmader, & Sidanius
(2002)
Ͳ Thee more members of a high status grroup endorse indivvidual mobility
(leggitimizing ideologyy), the more they pperceive that theyy are targets of
discrimination.
Ͳ Thee more members of a low status grooup endorse indivvidual mobility, the
less they perceive thhat they are targetss or discriminationn.
Ͳ Am
mong members of the low status grooup, personal disc rimination is
perrceived to a greateer extent among thhose who are highhly identified with
thee ingroup.
Ͳ Whhen high status grooup members are rejected by an ouutgroup member,
bellief in a legitimizingg ideology is assoociated with more attributions of
discrimination whereeas it is associatedd with fewer attribuutions of
discrimination amongg low status groupp members.
Ͳ Whhen members of a high status groupp are rejected by aan ingroup
meember, belief in a legitimizing ideologgy is negatively asssociated with
perrceptions of discrim
mination.
Ͳ A member
m
of a low status
s
group who i s rejected by an inngroup member iss
moore likely to perceivve this as an act oof discrimination thhan members of a
higgh status group whho are rejected by an outgroup mem
mber.
Ͳ Leggitimizing ideologies do not accountt for perceived disscrimination when
donne by an ingroup member
m
among loow status groups.
Discriminatioon
5.3
Pe
ermeability
y and Inte
ergroup Perception
ns
A search off the literaturee revealed thaat there is lim
mited research that focussess only on perm
meability
and intergro
oup perceptio
ons. One study
y conducted bby Leong (20008) did include perceived
permeabilitty as one of th
he variables of
o interest inveestigating attiitudes towardds immigrantss. This
investigatio
on used secon
ndary data, an
nd as such the methodologyy for the data collection waas not
reported. Results
R
from a multiple hierrarchical regrression showeed that permeaability did noot
significantlly predict attittudes toward immigrants, rrather for Leoong’s study perceived threat and
intergroup contract
c
weree found to preedict the interggroup attitudees. It is possibble that there is a
relationship
p between perrmeability and
d attitudes tow
wards immigrrants that is m
mediated by pperceived
threat and intergroup con
ntact. Other research (e.g. Verkuyten, 22005; Verkuytten & Reijersse, 2008;
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 69
Joohnson, Terry
y, & Louis, 20
005) examinin
ng the relation
nship betweeen sociostructuural beliefs annd
inntergroup percceptions is discussed in thee following seection, and thhese efforts innclude permeaability.
5
5.4
Othe
er Researc
ch examin
ning Socio
ostructura
al Beliefs and
Interrgroup Perceptions
O
Other research
h centred on more
m
than onee sociostructurral belief andd the impacts oon intergroupp
peerceptions and are, therefo
ore, included in
i this section
n. One study bby Verkuytenn (2005) exam
mined
thhe implication
ns faced by ad
dopting an ideeology of mullticulturalism
m versus an ideeology of collourbllindness (as exhibited
e
by assimilation).
a
Though theree are proponeents of multicculturalism annd its
poositive impacct on intergrou
up relations, there
t
are thosee who argue iit indulges inddividual cultuural
diifferentiation,, thus exacerb
bating culturaal conflict. Acccording to Veerkuyten, the impact of
m
multiculturalism differs acro
oss minority and
a majority groups. Whille multiculturralism allows
m
minority group
ps to maintain
n and affirm th
heir ethnic id
dentity, it mighht prove threaatening to thee
m
majority culturre for whom assimilation
a
provides
p
justiffication.
V
Verkuyten (2005) conducted four studiess investigating
g the effects oof multiculturralism and
asssimilation on
n group identiity and ingrou
up and outgro
oup evaluationn among minority (Turkishh) and
m
majority (Dutcch) groups witthin the Netherlands was examined.
e
Thhe series of stuudies was aim
med at
asssessing both the multicultturalism hypo
othesis and claaims made byy SIT. He prooposed that addopting
a multiculturall ideology willl lead to a mo
ore accepting attitude towaards other culltural groups. On the
otther hand, SIT
T argues that interethnic id
deologies affeect group interractions diffeerently dependding on
w
whether one is a member off the minority
y or majority group.
g
Speciffically, SIT prroposed that
enndorsing a mu
ulticultural id
deology would
d lead to increeased ethnic iidentificationn and a more ppositive
evvaluation of th
he ingroup fo
or members off the minority
y Turkish grouup. On the otther hand, enddorsing
a multiculturall ideology wo
ould lead to weaker
w
ethnic identification
i
n and more poositive outgroup
evvaluations am
mong the majo
ority Dutch grroup. Embraccing a particullar ideology iis essentially an
addmission of itts legitimacy. He also conssidered how perceptions
p
off stability andd permeabilityy
w
would impact intergroup
i
peerceptions.
Inn the last two of his four sttudies Verkuy
yten (2005) ussed an experim
mental surveyy method in w
which
Study
paarticipants weere primed wiith either a mu
ulticultural id
deology or ann assimilationiist ideology. S
3 also included
d a neutral con
ntrol conditio
on that primed
d leisure timee and environm
mental issuess.
Fuurthermore, Study
S
4 also in
ncluded meassures of perceeived permeabbility of the ggroups and
peerceived stabiility of the eth
hnic relationss.
Inn both of these studies, Verrkuyten (2005
5) found that within the muulticulturalism
m condition,
Turkish particiipants were more
m
likely to endorse multticulturalism tthan were Duutch participannts.
A
Also, for Turkiish participan
nts, ethnic gro
oup identificattion was highher in the mullticultural conndition
thhan the other two
t condition
ns combined in
i Study 3, an
nd higher thann the assimilaation conditioon in
Sttudy 4. Theree was also a positive associiation betweeen multiculturralism and ethhnic group
iddentification for
f the Turkissh participantss, in both stud
dies. Converssely, within thhe assimilation
coondition, Dutch participantts were signifficantly more likely than T
Turkish participants to endoorse
asssimilation. Furthermore,
F
in
i both studiees, ethnic grou
up identificatiion was higheer for Dutch
paarticipants in the assimilatiion condition
n than in the multicultural
m
ccondition. Thhere was also a
poositive associiation between
n assimilation
n and ethnic group
g
identifiication for Duutch participannts in
booth studies. On
O the other hand,
h
there waas a negative association
a
beetween assim
milation and etthnic
grroup identificcation for Turrkish participaants, howeverr, this associaation was onlyy significant iin
Sttudy 3.
Paage 70
Humanssystems®
With respecct to the socio
ostructural vaariables, Verku
kuyten (2005) found that D
Dutch participaants felt
that the ethn
nic groups weere more perm
meable than T
Turkish particcipants, and thhat the intergrroup
relations weere more stab
ble. Across co
onditions, therre was a signiificant stabilitty × ethnic grroup
interaction such that, am
mong the Dutcch participantss, there was a positive assoociation betw
ween
stability and
d group identtification. On the other hannd, there was no significannt relationshipp between
stability and
d ethnic grou
up identificatio
on among thee Turkish partticipants. Thuus, when the sstability of
the intergro
oup relations were
w perceiveed to be stablee, Dutch partiicipants, but nnot Turkish
participantss, were much more likely to
t closely idenntify with theeir group. Theere was also a
significant permeability × ethnic grou
up interactionn such that theere was a negative associattion
between peermeability an
nd ethnic grou
up identificatiion among thee Turkish parrticipants, butt no
relationship
p within the Dutch
D
particip
pants. In otherr words, whenn membershipp was perceivved to be
permeable, Turkish partiicipants were much less likkely to closelyy associate thhemselves witth their
ot true for Duttch participannts.
group. The same was no
meability and stability weree not significaantly related tto each other,, permeabilityy was
While perm
significantlly negatively related
r
to mu
ulticulturalism
m in the multiccultural condiition and posiitively
related to assimilation in
n the assimilattion conditionn (Verkuytenn, 2005). Therrefore, when eethnic
boundaries were seen as more flexible, there was a decreased suupport for muulticulturalism
m, but
increased su
upport for asssimilation. Peerceived stabiility was onlyy marginally ppositively relaated to
assimilation
n and not relaated to multicu
ulturalism. Thhese results w
were similar aacross both Dutch and
Turkish parrticipants.
Turning to the ingroup and
a outgroup evaluations, M
MANOVAs w
were conductted. In both Sttudies 3
and 4, as in
n Studies 1 an
nd 2, there was a positive a ssociation between ethnic group identiffication
and ingroup
p evaluations. There was no
n associationn between grooup identificattion and outggroup
evaluationss in either stud
dy. In Study 4,
4 there was aalso a negativve association between percceived
stability and
d ingroup evaaluations. All of these finddings were sim
milar for bothh Turkish and Dutch
participantss.
There was a significant multivariate
m
ethnic
e
group × experimental condition iinteraction in both
Studies 3 an
nd 4. Dutch participants
p
teended to havee a somewhat more positivee evaluation oof the
outgroup an
nd somewhat less positive evaluation off the ingroup in the multicuulturalism conditions
compared to the assimilaation conditio
ons in both stuudies. Converrsely, the Turrkish participaants
tended to have a somewh
hat more posiitive evaluatioon of the ingrroup and less positive evalluation of
the outgrou
up in the multiculturalism condition.
c
Thhese findings w
were also mirrrored in the
multivariatee multiculturaalism × ethnicc group interaaction. Amonng Dutch partiicipants in Stuudy 3,
there was a positive asso
ociation betweeen their endoorsement of m
multiculturalism and their outgroup
evaluationss. In Study 4, this finding was
w extended to ingroup evvaluations succh that a stronnger
endorsemen
nt of multicullturalism amo
ong the Dutchh participants was associateed with a morre
negative ing
group evaluattion. Howeveer, the findinggs for Turkishh participants were not signnificant for
either ingro
oup or outgrou
up evaluation
ns in either stuudy. Taken toogether, it apppears that enddorsing
multiculturalism in itselff may promotte more positiive perceptionns toward a loow status outggroup.
d a significantt interaction bbetween the enndorsement oof assimilationn and
Verkuyten (2005) found
up for both ing
group and outtgroup evaluaations. Howevver, this was oonly true in S
Study 4for
ethnic grou
both ingrou
up and outgroup evaluation
ns. For Dutchh participants, a stronger enndorsement off
assimilation
n was positiveely related to ingroup evalluations, and nnegatively rellated to outgrroup
evaluationss. There was no
n association
n between thee endorsemennt of assimilattion and eitherr ingroup
or outgroup
p evaluations among Turkiish participannts. However, among Turkiish participannts, there
was a positive associatio
on between th
he belief in thee permeability
ty of the groupps and outgrooup
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 71
evvaluations. Th
he more perm
meable the Turrkish participants found thhe groups, thee more positivvely
thhey felt about the Dutch.
W
Within Study 4,
4 Verkuyten (2005) also examined
e
ingrroup and outggroup evaluattions of traits
tyypically assocciated with eitther the Dutch
h (competencce) or the Turkks (morality).. Dutch particcipants
w
were more likeely to be seen as competen
nt, both by theemselves (ingrroup evaluatiions) and by tthe
Turkish particiipants (outgro
oup evaluation
ns) and Turkss were more llikely to be seeen as highly moral
booth by themseelves (ingroup
p evaluations) and by the Dutch
D
particippants (outgrouup evaluationns).
These findingss were not asssociated with either multicu
ulturalism or assimilation. Perceptions of
peermeability did interact wiith ethnic grou
up for both morality
m
ratinggs and competence ratings.. For
Turkish particiipants, there was
w a significcant positive association
a
beetween permeeability and
I other wordss, the more peermeable the Turkish partiicipants believved the
ouutgroup moraality ratings. In
grroups to be, th
he more moraal they found the Dutch gro
oup. On the oother hand, foor Dutch
paarticipants, th
here was a sig
gnificant negaative associatiion between ppermeability aand outgroup
coompetence ratings. Thus, the
t more perm
meable the Du
utch participannts believed tthe groups to be, the
leess competentt they felt Turrkish people were.
w
Stability
y had no effeccts on either ccompetence oor
m
morality rating
gs.
V
Verkuyten and
d Reijerse (2008) also exam
mined the com
mbined effectss of the three sociostructurral
vaariables on grroup identification, stereoty
ypes, and gro
oup feelings aamong high annd low status group
m
members. In paarticular, they
y compared reesponses of Dutch
D
people ((high status ggroup) and TuurkishD
Dutch people 13 (low status group) in the Netherlands.. Measures asssessed particiipants’ percepptions
off all three socciostructural variables,
v
ingrroup identificcation, and ouutgroup identiification amonng low
sttatus members (i.e., Turkissh-Dutch indiv
viduals’ identtification withh Dutch). To assess group
sttereotypes, the attributions of Dutch and
d Turkish-Duttch participannts were also used as meassures.
There were 10 positive attriibutes in total: five were reelevant to the status distincction, but morre
chharacteristic of
o the Dutch culture
c
(e.g., efficient,
e
achiievement orieented), and fivve were irreleevant to
thhe distinction,, but more chaaracteristic off the Turkish culture (e.g., hospitable, trradition mindded)
(ssee Verkuyten
n, 2005). Finaally, the feelin
ngs of both grroups of partiicipants towarrd several inggroups
annd outgroups (Dutch, Turk
ks, Surinamesse, Moroccanss, and Antilleeans) were alsso captured.
A
According to Verkuyten
V
and
d Reijerse (20
008), results for
f beliefs aboout the status structure shoowed
thhat members of
o the low staatus group perrceived the strructure as les s legitimate, m
more stable, aand as
haaving less perrmeable group
p boundaries than did mem
mbers of the hhigh status grooup. In additiion, a
leegitimate interrgroup structu
ure had differrent meaningss for the two ggroups. For loow status mem
mbers,
a legitimate strructure was asssociated with
h less stability
y and more p ermeability, w
whereas for hhigh
sttatus members, a legitimatee structure waas associated with more staability and less permeabiliity.
B
Because high and
a low statuss groups percceive the statu
us structure diifferently, Veerkuyten and
R
Reijerse (2008) analysed thee two groups separately fo
or the other deependent meaasures. Resultts
shhowed that members
m
of thee low status group
g
had high
her ingroup iddentification than memberrs of
thhe high status group. Also for the low sttatus group, th
heir level of T
Turkish identiification was
neegatively relaated to their leevel of Dutch identification
n. For the low
w status groupp, regression
annalyses indicaated that the sociostructura
s
al variables prredicted their identificationn with Turks. All of
thhe main effectts and two-waay interaction
ns were signifficant, and weere qualified bby a three-waay
innteraction. Th
his interaction
n showed that when the stattus structure w
was perceivedd as stable annd
These are actuaally Turkish participants, but beccause ethnic minnorities tend to hhave dual identitiies – they identiffy with
booth their ingroup and the nationaal category – they are referred too as Turkish-Duttch (e.g., Verkuyyten, 2005; cited in
Veerkuyten & Reijeerse, 2008).
13
Paage 72
Humanssystems®
relatively leegitimate, thee permeability
y of group bouundaries was negatively reelated to Turkkish
identificatio
on and positiv
vely related to
o Dutch identtification. In tthis context thhen more perm
meability
was related
d to less ingrou
up identificattion and moree outgroup higgher status iddentification. W
When the
status structure was percceived as less stable and reelatively legitiimate, there w
was no relatioon between
permeabilitty and ingroup
p identificatio
on. When the status structuure was low inn legitimacy and
regardless of
o the level off stability, theere was no asssociation betw
ween permeabbility and inggroup
identificatio
on. For the hiigh status grou
up, perceivedd legitimacy hhad a positivee effect on inggroup
identificatio
on, such that the
t more statu
us differencess were perceiived to be legitimate, the m
more high
status group
p members id
dentified with Dutch. Theree were no siggnificant effeccts for stabilitty or
permeabilitty, and there were
w no significant interacctions.
Importantly
y, Verkuyten and Reijerse (2008) discovvered some evvidence that ssociostructuraal beliefs
influenced intergroup peerceptions. Fo
or example, paarticipants peerceived statuus irrelevant ddimensions
T
the low
wer status grouup. And for thhe status relevvant dimensioons, high
as more stereotypic of Turks,
status mem
mbers perceiveed the dimenssions as more stereotypic oof their ingrouup rather thann their
outgroup, whereas
w
low status
s
memberrs perceived ttheir ingroup and outgroupp as equivalennt on those
dimensionss. Among low
w status memb
bers, Verkuyteen and Reijerrse regressionn analyses on the status
irrelevant dimensions
d
sh
howed that thee main effectss for stability and legitimaacy were signiificant,
and their in
nteractions with permeabiliity were also significant. T
The effects weere qualified bby a
significant three-way intteraction amo
ong the sociosstructural variiables for the status irrelevvant
dimensionss. Similar to th
he findings fo
or ingroup ideentification, w
when status diifferences weere
perceived as
a stable and relatively
r
legiitimate, there was a negativve associationn between permeability
and ingroup
p stereotypes.. Therefore, in
n this intergrooup context, w
when group bboundaries weere seen as
more permeeable, stereoty
ypes on irreleevant dimensiions were seeen as less posiitive for the inngroup.
For the otheer combinatio
ons of stability
y and legitim
macy, no relatiion was obserrved for perm
meability
and ingroup
p stereotypes.. For the statu
us relevant dim
mensions, theere were signiificant negativve effects
of permeab
bility and legittimacy, as weell as an interaaction betweeen stability annd legitimacy. When
status differrences were relatively
r
legiitimate, more stability wass associated w
with more positive
outgroup sttereotypes. When
W
status diffferences werre illegitimatee, more stability was assocciated with
less positive outgroup sttereotypes.
h status group
p members, Verkuyten
V
andd Reijerse (20008) found ann effect of leggitimacy
For the high
for group sttereotypes on
n the status irrrelevant dimennsions. The pperceived legiitimacy of thee status
structure was positively associated wiith more posiitive ingroup stereotypes annd less positive
outgroup sttereotypes. Hiigh status mem
mbers ascribeed more posittive attributioons to themsellves. The
status relev
vant dimension
ns showed a main
m effect o f stability andd an interactioon between leegitimacy
and stability
y. When statu
us differencess were perceivved as relatively legitimatee, more stabillity was
associated with
w less posiitive outgroup
p stereotypes,, whereas wheen differences were perceiived as
illegitimatee, there was no
o association between stabbility and outggroup stereotyypes.
Verkuyten and Reijerse (2008) also examined
e
the impact percepptions of sociiostructural beliefs
would havee on ingroup feelings.
f
Regrression analysses showed thhat for low staatus group members,
there was a positive effeect of stability
y, such that m
more perceivedd stability was associated w
with more
positive ing
group feelingss. For feelings toward the ooutgroup, theere was a posiitive effect for
permeabilitty. Verkuyten
n and Reijersee showed that more perceivved permeabiility in group
boundaries was related to
t more positiive feelings tooward the Duutch outgroup. There was aalso a
legitimacy by stability in
nteraction forr outgroup feeelings. When status was peerceived as leggitimate,
more stability was assocciated with mo
ore positive fe
feelings towarrd the Dutch. In contrast, w
when
status was perceived
p
as illegitimate,
i
more
m
stabilityy was associatted with less ppositive feelinngs
toward the Dutch.
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 73
A
Analyses on th
he ratings for feelings of lo
ow status mem
mbers toward other minoritty groups (sum
mmed
raatings for Surinamese, Morroccans, and Antilleans)
A
sh
howed that thhere was a thrree-way interaaction
am
mong the sociostructural variables.
v
Wheen the intergrroup context w
was perceivedd as legitimatte and
sttable, there was a negative association between
b
perm
meability and ffeelings towaard minority ggroups,
suuch that a more permeable group bound
dary with the higher
h
status group was reelated to less
poositive feeling
gs toward oth
her minority groups.
g
The reelation betweeen permeabiliity and feelinngs
tooward minoritty group mem
mbers was nott significant for
fo the other ccombinations of legitimacyy and
sttability. With respect to thee high status group’s
g
feelin
ngs toward otther minority outgroups, reesults
t
was a neegative main effect for botth stability annd legitimacy,, but these efffects
w
were qualified by an interacction between
n legitimacy and
a stability. V
Verkuyten annd Reijerse (2008)
foollow-up anallyses showed that when thee intergroup context
c
was pperceived to bbe legitimate, more
sttability was asssociated with
h less positivee outgroup feeelings. Howeever, when thee context wass
illlegitimate, th
here was no asssociation bettween stability
y and outgrouup feelings. F
Finally, legitim
macy
haad a positive effect on ingrroup feelings,, such that wh
hen status wass perceived as legitimate, hhigh
sttatus group members
m
reporrted more possitive feelingss toward theirr ingroup.
V
Verkuyten and
d Reijerse (2008) underscore the importaance of the innterplay amonng perceived
sttability, legitim
macy, and peermeability fo
or understandiing intergroupp relations. W
When intergrouup
reelations were legitimate an
nd stable, low status group members tennded to perceiive the outgrooup
faavourably on stereotypes th
hat were relev
vant to differeences in sociaal status. Wheen the relationns were
peerceived as illegitimate, ho
owever, low status
s
members showed lesss stereotypinng on the relevvant
diimensions and
d less positivee feelings tow
ward the higheer status grouup the more sttable the statuus
sttructure was perceived
p
to be.
b These find
dings indicatee that when staatus differencces are not vaalid,
loow status grou
up members may
m question differences in
n status betweeen their ownn group and thhe high
sttatus group. When
W
high staatus group possition was perrceived as desserved and juustified, high status
m
members show
wed more ingrroup identification, more positive
p
feelinngs toward theeir ingroup, aand
peerceived feweer differencess between theiir ingroup and
d the outgrouup on dimensiions that weree
irrrelevant to th
he status structure. In Verku
uyten and Reeijerse’s studyy, group statuss stability also
m
moderated the effects of leg
gitimacy. Wheen the intergrroup context w
was perceivedd as valid, moore
grroup stability was related to
t more negattive evaluations of the outggroup on statuus relevant
diimensions and
d more negatiive feelings to
oward lower status groupss. When the differences in status
w
were not seen as
a deserved or
o justified, staability was no
ot related to ooutgroup evalluations or atttitudes.
V
Verkuyten and
d Reijerse mak
ke an importaant contributio
on to understaanding the differential effeects of
soociostructurall beliefs on in
ntergroup percceptions.
Joohnson, Terry
y, and Louis (2005)
(
also in
nvestigated thee effects of m
multiple sociosstructural belliefs on
inntergroup percceptions. Specifically, John
nson and collleagues were interested in negative intergroup
peerceptions, naamely prejudiice and stereo
otyping. Theree has been rennewed publicc awareness of
raacism and preejudice as a peervasive prob
blem in Austraalia. As such,, the study exaamined the
prredictors of blatant and sub
btle prejudicee as well as stereotyping foor majority W
White Australiaans
tooward minoritty Asian Austtralians. Three sociostructu
ural beliefs w
were hypothesized to predicct
prrejudice: instaability, permeeability, and legitimacy.
l
In
n addition, higgher ingroup sstatus and
auuthoritarianism
m were included as predicctors. Johnson
n and colleaguues had three specific
hyypotheses. Firrst, it was preedicted that when
w
perceptio
ons of instabiility are high, perceptions oof
peermeable grou
up boundaries would be po
ositively relatted to blatant and subtle prrejudice againnst
A
Asian Australians unfavorab
ble stereotypiing, particularrly among W
White Australiaans who perceeived
hiigh ingroup sttatus. Second
d, it was prediicted that the previously
p
deescribed interractive effectss
beetween stabiliity and permeeability on preejudice and sttereotyping w
would also be strong amongg
W
White Australiians who percceived high leegitimacy of their
t
status. L
Lastly, it was ppredicted thatt high
Paage 74
Humanssystems®
perceptionss of status and
d the legitimaacy of status pposition wouldd have interacctive effects oon
prejudice an
nd stereotypin
ng.
To test their hypotheses,, Johnson and
d colleagues (22005) mailedd out questionnnaire packages that
included measures of au
uthoritarianism
m, perceived iinstability, peerceived statuus, perceived
legitimacy, subtle and bllatant prejudice, and positiive stereotypiic perceptionss of Asian Auustralians.
A total of 265
2 Australian
n residents retturned the quuestionnaire package (respoonse rate = 311%) and
10 participaants who did not
n identify as
a White Austtralian were eexcluded from
m analysis. Foor the most
part, the scaales used dem
monstrated accceptable reliaability (Į= .699 - .83). Due tto methodologgical
concerns, th
he stability measure
m
was dichotomized tto contrast reespondents whho perceived White
Australianss’ position as unstable and changing (n = 144) versuss those who ddid not (n = 977).
Results of regression
r
mo
odels simple slope
s
analysiss demonstrateed that higherr perceptions oof ingroup
status and permeability
p
was
w linked wiith stronger bblatant prejudiice and less eendorsement oof positive
stereotypes when the soccial positions were view ass unstable, suupporting Johnnson et al.’s ((2005) first
hypothesis. When the so
ocial position was viewed aas high and sttable, percepttions of permeeable
group boun
ndaries were unrelated
u
to blatant prejudiice, weakly liinked to less ffavourable
stereotyping, and associaated with low
wer subtle biass against Asiaan Australianss. Similarly, JJohnson
and colleag
gues’ second hypothesis
h
waas supported. White Austraalians who viiewed their soocial
position to be unstable and
a the intergrroup boundarries to be perm
meable demonnstrated increeasing
blatant prejudice the more they perceived their grooup status to bbe legitimate. Together, thhese
interactionss imply that majority
m
group
p members “eexperience inccreased threaat when they pperceive
that their su
uperior status position is in
nsecure, particcularly when the intergrouup boundariess are
perceived to
o be permeab
ble and their dominant
d
statuus position is judged to be high or legitiimate.”
(Johnson ett al., p.66) Th
hese results also suggest thaat this increassed perception of threat leaads to
greater outg
group bias.
Johnson and colleagues’ (2005) also found
f
significcant interactioon effects forr legitimacy aand status
and these were
w significan
ntly associateed with both ssubtle and blaatant prejudice. In other woords,
mate demonsstrated increassed blatant
White Austtralians who viewed
v
their status
s
to be hiigh and legitim
and subtle prejudice.
p
Ov
verall, the inteeractive effeccts of instabiliity, permeabiility and legitiimacy in
their study highlights thee importance of examiningg the interplayy among socioostructural beeliefs in
the predictiion of intergro
oup perceptio
ons, such as prrejudice.
Although Jaackson (2002
2) did not speccifically lookk at sociostrucctural beliefs, his research eexamined
group identtity, conflict and
a prejudice, so it is incluuded here for interest. In brrief, he argued that the
relation bettween group identity
i
and in
ngroup bias w
would be stronnger for majoority ethnic grroup
members raather than min
nority ethnic group membeers. Jackson rreasoned that majority grouup
members’ ethnic
e
identity
y should be saalient if they pperceive confflict with anoother group annd should
elicit ingrou
up bias. In co
ontrast, ethnic minority grooup members have a varietty of reasons ffor
identifying with their gro
oup, such as the
t salience oor visibility off their group, and not limitted to
perceived conflict.
c
Thereefore, a relation between ggroup identityy and prejudicce is predictedd but this
relation sho
ould be strong
ger for majoriity than minorrity group meembers. And tthe perceivedd
intergroup conflict
c
is priimarily respon
nsible for thiss relation.
Jackson (20
002) administtered a questio
onnaire that aassessed the vvariables of innterest. Particcipants
belonged to
o one of threee ethnic group
ps: White Am
merican, Africaan American,, or Asian Am
merican.
There weree six different versions of th
he questionnaaire to reflectt six different ingroup/outggroup
situations based
b
on the participants’
p
ethnicity.
e
Thuus, each ethnicc group (e.g., White Amerrican) had
to two outg
groups (Africaan American and Asian Am
merican), andd, as such, theere were two vversions of
the question
nnaire for eacch group. Furtthermore, Jacckson assessed two major ddimensions of group
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 75
iddentity: interd
dependency (iidentifying wiith ingroup members
m
regullarly) and inggroup attractioon
(ppride in ingrou
up). He also assessed
a
perceptions of con
nflict with thee outgroup (oobtaining outggroup
gooals prevents obtaining ing
group goals). Finally, threee dimensions of prejudice w
were assessedd: (1)
beehavioural inttentions, by using
u
social diistance items (e.g., the exteent to which tthey would accept
ann outgroup member
m
as a go
ood friend); (2
2) affect, by asking
a
particiipants to indiccate how theyy
w
would feel if th
hey were at a party and a derogating
d
jok
ke was told abbout [the outggroup] (scenaario
addapted from Bynes
B
and Kiger, 1988, as cited in Jacksson) using sem
mantic differential scales ((e.g.,
reesentment—aacceptance); and
a (3) cognittion, by asking
g participantss to indicate hhow they wouuld
reeact if they weere at a dinneer and some of the guests stated that [ouutgroup membbers] are the rreason
foor many of tod
day’s social problems
p
(sceenario adapted
d from Byness and Kiger, 11988; cited in
Jaackson) using
g bipolar scalees (e.g., unfair—fair) and close-ended
c
ittems (e.g., “M
Most [outgrouup
m
members] havee the drive an
nd determinatiion to get aheead”). Higher scores indicaate more prejuudice
annd all three prrejudice meassures were po
ositively correelated.
Jaackson (2002)) found that African
A
Amerricans showed
d the strongesst group identtification folloowed
byy White Ameericans and then by Asian Americans.
A
Id
dentification w
was significanntly differentt for all
thhree groups. African
A
Amerricans also perrceived the grreatest amounnt of intergrouup conflict foollowed
byy Asian Amerricans and theen by White Americans.
A
African
A
Ameriicans significaantly differedd from
A
Asians and Wh
hite American
ns, but the diffference between the latterr two groups w
was only marginal.
A
Additional anaalyses showed
d that the high
hest level of conflict
c
was fo
for African Am
mericans withh
reespect to White Americanss as the outgro
oup. When th
he two dimenssions were annalysed separaately,
A
African Ameriicans showed more ingroup
p attraction th
han both the A
Asian Americcan and Whitee
A
American samp
ples, but the latter
l
two gro
oups did not differ
d
from eacch other. In aaddition, Asiaan
A
Americans sho
owed less inteerdependency
y than did Wh
hite Americanns, and there w
was no differeence
beetween the White
W
and Afriican American
n groups.
M
More importan
ntly, Jackson (2002) found
d prejudice lev
vels were fairrly low amongg all participaants. A
6 (intergroup context)
c
× 3 (P
Prejudice type) ANOVA with
w the latterr factor as witthin-subjects w
was
coonducted on the
t prejudice scores. Theree was a signifficant interacti
tion between tthe two factorrs
reevealing that the
t intergroup
p context had
d no effect on expressions oof affective prrejudice, but did
haave an effect on prejudiced
d behaviourall intentions an
nd cognitions . For prejudicced behaviourral
inntentions, Asian Americans reported lesss prejudice to
oward White Americans coompared to A
African
A
Americans. Fo
or prejudiced cognitions,
c
African
A
Ameriicans showed more prejudiice toward W
White
A
Americans com
mpared to Asiian American
ns, and White Americans shhowed more pprejudice tow
ward
A
African Ameriicans compareed to Asian Americans.
A
Jaackson’s (200
02) analysis of the relation between grou
up identity annd perceived iintergroup coonflict
shhowed that th
his relation waas significantlly stronger fo
or White Ameericans compaared to Asian and
A
African Ameriicans. A simillar pattern of results was fo
ound for the rrelation betweeen group ideentity
annd prejudice. When the gro
oup identity dimensions
d
were examinedd separately, tthe correlationnal
findings were more
m
consisteent with the in
nterdependen
ncy than ingrooup attraction dimension.
A
Additional anaalyses on the ingroup
i
attracction dimension showed thhat for White Americans, inngroup
atttraction was positively asssociated with prejudiced co
ognitions agaainst African A
Americans annd
prrejudiced beh
haviours again
nst Asian Am
mericans. Thesse two correlaations were noo longer signiificant
w
when interdepeendency and perceived
p
con
nflict were tak
ken into accoount in a regreession analysiis. For
booth minority groups,
g
ingroup attraction was not signiificantly correelated with prrejudice againnst
ouutgroups. On the interdepeendence dimension, analysses generally sshowed that ffor White
A
Americans, intterdependencee was positiveely and signifficantly correelated with alll three types oof
prrejudice for both
b
African and
a Asian Am
mericans (exceept for prejuddiced cognitioons for this lattter
grroup). When ingroup attracction and percceived conflicct were controolled for in a regression annalysis,
Paage 76
Humanssystems®
the correlattions were stilll significant except for preejudiced behaavioural intenntions toward African
Americans.. For African Americans, interdependenncy was not siignificantly ccorrelated withh the three
types of preejudice againsst White Ameericans or Asiian Americanns. For Asian Americans, thhere were
no significaant correlation
ns between in
nterdependenccy and the thrree types of pprejudice for bboth
outgroups. For White Am
mericans and African Ameericans, perceeived conflictt was the best predictor
for all threee types of prejjudice (contro
olling for bothh dimensionss of group identity).
Jackson’s (2002) study supports
s
the notion
n
that thee relation betw
ween group iddentity and prrejudice
depends on
n the status off the groups in
nvolved. For hhigh status grroup memberss, stronger inggroup
identificatio
on was associiated with mo
ore negative pperceptions off low status group memberrs,
whereas forr low status group
g
memberrs, ingroup iddentification w
was not correllated with intergroup
perceptionss. Jackson sho
owed that perceived confli ct was the best predictor oof prejudice foor White
and African
n Americans. Moreover, in
ngroup interdeependency was a better preedictor of preejudice
compared to ingroup attrraction. The relationship
r
bbetween confllict and interggroup perceptiion such
as prejudicee should be ex
xamined with
h variances inn sociostructurral beliefs as these will likkely be
associated.
ummarizes thee research thaat assesses alll three sociosttructural dimeensions in rellations to
Table 11 su
intergroup perceptions.
p
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 77
Table 11. Summary of research combining all
a three soc
ciostructura
al dimensions in
relation to
o intergroup
p perceptio
ons.
Reeference
Outcome
Intergroup Percceptions
Veerkuyten (2005)
Ͳ Multicultturalism is more strongly endorsed by a minority grouup whereas
assimilaation is more strongly endorsed by a majority group.
Ͳ Multicultturalism is associaated with a strongeer ethnic group ideentification and
more poositive ingroup evaaluations among minority
m
groups whhereas among
majorityy groups it is assocciated with weakerr ethnic group idenntification,
more neegative ingroup evvaluations and morre positive outgrouup evaluations.
Ͳ Assimilaation is associatedd with more negative outgroup evaluuations among
majorityy group members.
Ͳ Majorityy group members perceive
p
a more stable status structture and more
permeable boundaries thaan minority group members and thiss is strongest
when asssimilation is endoorsed.
Ͳ When boundaries are perrceived to be perm
meable, there is lesss support for
milation.
multicultturalism and moree support for assim
Ͳ Stabilityy is associated withh stronger group iddentification amonng majority
group members
m
whereas permeability is asssociated with weaaker group
identificaation among minoority group membeers.
Multiculturalism,
Ͳ Low status groups perceivve a legitimate soccial structure as leess stable and
more peermeable than an illegitimate social structure.
Ͳ High staatus groups perceiive a legitimate soocial structure as m
more stable
and lesss permeable than an illegitimate soccial structure.
Ͳ Within loow status groups, when status struccture is perceived to be stable
and legitimate more perm
meability is associaated with less ingrooup
identificaation and more ouutgroup identification.
Ͳ High staatus groups are moore likely to identiffy with their groupp when the
structuree is perceived to be
b legitimate regarrdless of stability oor permeability.
Ͳ Low status groups expresss less positive inggroup stereotypes on status
irrelevannt dimensions wheen the boundaries between groups aare permeable.
Ͳ High staatus groups expresss more positive inngroup stereotypees and less
positive outgroup stereotyypes on status irreelevant dimensionss when the
status structure is seen ass legitimate.
Ͳ On statuus relevant dimenssions, low status groups
g
express moore positive
outgroup stereotypes andd less positive ingrroup stereotypes w
when the
b stable rather than unstable, wherreas within the
high status group, when status
s
differences were perceived too be legitimate,
more staability is associateed with less positivve outgroup stereootypes.
Ͳ In stablee, illegitimate, and impermeable situuations, low statuss groups stress
their distinctive ethnic identity and distance themselves from other low
status groups.
Ingroup identificaation
Ͳ Higher status
s
and more permeability is assoociated with moree blatant
prejudicce and less endorssement of positive stereotypes whenn the status
b unstable.
Ͳ Under stable status conditions, high status and permeability w
were unrelated
to blatannt prejudice, weakkly related to less favourable
f
stereottyping, and
associatted with lower subbtle bias.
Ͳ The more permeable grouup boundaries aree perceived to be bby members of
more legitimate
a high status group underr an unstable sociaal structure, the m
the struccture is believed too be and the moree blatant prejudicee that is
displayeed.
Ͳ Memberrs who believe theey are part of a higgh status group whho believe their
status too be legitimate dissplay both subtle and
a blatant prejudiice.
Ͳ Ingroup attraction and inggroup interdependeency in majority g roups are
associatted with prejudice towards the minoority outgroup wheereas ingroup
Subtle prejudice
Veerkuyten & Reijersse
(2008)
Joohnson, Terry, &
Loouis (2005)
Jaackson (2002)
Paage 78
Assimilation,
Ingroup evaluatioon,
Outgroup evaluaation,
Ethnic group identification
Outgroup favourritism
Distinctiveness
Blatant prejudicee
Positive outgroup
stereotypes
Intergroup prejuddice
Humanssystems®
Reference
Outco
ome
Intergroup Perceptions
attraction and interdeependency are nott associated with pprejudice towards
the outgroup among minority group meembers.
Ͳ Perrceived intergroup conflict is related to ingroup identityy for majority grouup
members, but not forr minority group m embers.
Ͳ Thee best predictor of prejudice, especi ally among the maajority group, is
perceived intergroup conflict.
5.5
Su
ummary
In assessing
g how sociosttructural belieefs impact inttergroup perceeptions, the reesearch has inndicated
that among high status groups,
g
strong
ger ingroup iddentification is related to m
more negative outgroup
perceptionss (e.g., intergrroup prejudicee). The impacct of status staability on evaaluations of thhe
outgroup arre only eviden
nt when the evaluations aree measured im
mplicitly. Whhen status is uunstable,
and individ
duals are stron
ngly identified
d with their inngroup, they aare more likely to exhibit nnegative
implicit outtgroup evaluaations. Explicit evaluationss are only imppacted by the identificationn with the
ingroup, no
ot the stability
y or instability
y of the statuss.
The perceptions of whatt constitutes a legitimate str
tructure vary ddepending onn group statuss.
Specifically
y, low status groups
g
perceiive a legitimaate social struccture to be unnstable and peermeable,
whereas hig
gh status grou
ups perceive a legitimate sttructure to bee stable and im
mpermeable. This also
has implicaations for outg
group percepttions. When tthe status struucture is perceeived by low status
groups to be stable and legitimate,
l
permeability is associated w
with more posiitive outgroupp
perceptionss. On the otheer hand, legitim
macy is assocciated with m
more negative outgroup evaaluations
among high
h status group
ps. Legitimacy
y is also asso ciated with leess feelings off guilt and moore
feelings of threat from th
he lower statu
us group.
n ideology thaat justifies thee hierarchical relationship among groupps (i.e., a legittimizing
Belief in an
ideology, su
uch as individ
dual mobility) moderates th
the relationshiip between sttatus and interrgroup
perceptionss. While low status
s
groups who endorsee the legitimaccy of the struccture are less likely to
perceive disscrimination from the outg
group, higher status group members whho endorse leggitimizing
ideologies are
a more likelly to feel disccriminated aggainst by the lower status ooutgroup.
When statu
us structure is perceived to be more stabble and less peermeable, assiimilation is aadvocated
especially by
b high statuss groups. Supp
porting assim
milation (or coonversely showing little suupport for
multiculturalism) leads to
t a decrease in outgroup eevaluations am
mong high staatus groups, w
whereas
support for multiculturallism increasess outgroup evvaluations. W
When the position of high sttatus
groups is po
otentially threeatened by su
uggestions of instability annd permeabilitty in legitimaate social
structures, protective
p
ressponses are deemonstrated iin the form off both blatant and subtle prrejudice,
and less fav
vourable stereeotyping.
When statu
us is perceived
d to be stable and impermeeable, but illegitimate by loow status groups, they
are likely to
o emphasize their
t
distinctiv
veness from oother low stattus groups in order to elevaate their
own status relative to thee other group.
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 79
TH
HIS PAGE IN
NTENTIONALLY LEFT B
BLANK.
Paage 80
Humanssystems®
6. How do
o socia
al identtity ma
anagem
ment
sttrategiies inflluence
e interg
group
pe
ercepttions? (4.7.5))
An extensiv
ve search of existing
e
psych
hological literrature was connducted to innvestigate how
w various
identity maanagement strategies identiified by Tajfeel and Turner (1986) can innfluence interrgroup
perceptionss. This search revealed thatt there is littlee research dirrectly examining this relatiionship.
However, th
here were som
me articles that look at othher identity m
management sttrategies and tthe impact
these have on intergroup
p perceptions that are incluuded in this reeview.
a Brown (2
2006) were innterested in thhe effects of tw
wo strategies
For examplle, Gonzalez and
individualizzation (decateegorization) and
a superordinnate recategoorization (“com
mmon group
recategorization”) on inttergroup bias during and b eyond a contaact situation. Recall, Blanzz et al.
(1998) conssidered chang
ge of categorization to be a cognitive iddentity management style uunderstood
as individuaalization, sup
perordinate reccategorizationn, and suborddinate re-categgorization.
Individualizzation occurs when low staatus memberss no longer deefine themsellves as members of a
specific gro
oup, but ratheer as unique in
ndividuals whho are not affe
fected by grouup evaluationss (Ng,
1989; cited in Blanz et al.).
a Again, thee superordinaate re-categorrization strategy involves fformer
ingroup and
d outgroup members
m
defining themselvees in terms off a common, hhigher level iingroup
(e.g., Kessler & Mummeendey, 2002; Hornsey & H
Hogg, 2002). IIn contrast, thhe subordinatee
recategorization strategy
y involves div
viding the form
mer ingroup iinto subgroupps. They weree also
interested in
n a third man
nagement strattegy, dual ideentities. Gonzzalez and Brow
wn explain thhat
individuals can maintain
n their subgroup identities (enables grouup distinctivenness) within aan
inclusive co
ommon identiity with outgrroup memberrs (enables ouutgroup membbers to be seenn as
ingroup meembers). In th
he context of Gonzalez
G
andd Brown’s ressearch, this strrategy was viewed as a
strategy forr minimizing bias toward an
a outgroup. L
Low status m
members who eendorse dual identities
simultaneou
usly could use their higherr status membbership of thee superordinatte group to baalance the
low status of
o their subordinate group.
Gonzalez and Brown (20
006) also won
ndered if the eeffects of these categorizattion strategies would
be moderated by group size
s and status. With respeect to the form
mer, minority group members may
be more con
ncerned with the distinctiv
veness of theirr group relatiive to majorityy group mem
mbers, and
therefore, should be mottivated to eng
gage in ingrouup favouritism
m to preserve their group iddentity.
For group status,
s
low staatus memberss may be moree concerned w
with identity eenhancementt whereas
high status members maay be concerneed with identiity protectionn. The need foor high status members
to protect th
heir identity should
s
lead to
o more ingrouup favouritism
m. As such, G
Gonzalez and B
Brown
predicted th
hat minority and
a high statu
us group mem
mbers would sshow more biaas than majorrity and
low status group
g
membeers.
Gonzalez and Brown (20
006) also had
d predictions rregarding the effects of thrree categorizaation
strategies. When
W
de-cateegorization orr individualizaation is used as a strategy, outgroup meembers
should be viewed
v
as indiividuals ratheer than memb ers of a speciific group. Thherefore, the ggroup
distinctionss should have lost their meaning and inddividuals shouuld benefit froom a contact situation,
outside of their
t
group staatus. Howeveer, the benefitts of de-categoorization mayy not be transferred
beyond the contact situaation, because individuals m
may not be pssychologicallyy linked to ouutgroup
members orr the outgroup
p members may
m be perceivved as excepttions to the grroup. Gonzaleez and
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 81
B
Brown predicteed that group size and statu
us would hav
ve no effect onn de-categorizzation both duuring
annd beyond a contact
c
situatiion.
W
When common
n recategorizaation or superrordinate iden
ntity is used aas a strategy, iindividuals reecaategorize theiir group membership so thaat they belong
g to the same group as theiir outgroup
m
members. Gon
nzalez and Bro
own (2006) point
p
out that the
t benefits fr
from the contaact situation m
may
noot be generaliized beyond this
t situation because
b
differences in gro up size or staatus make subbgroup
iddentities salien
nt. For minorrity members, they may feeel more threattened with reccategorizationn
beecause becom
ming part of th
he same identtity as majoritty members ccan mean that they lose theeir
grroup distinctiveness. Mino
ority memberss may show more
m
intergrouup bias both dduring and beeyond a
coontact situatio
on. For high status
s
group members,
m
they
y may not waant to be subsuumed into thee same
grroup identity as low status members and
d try to protecct their status, especially iff the group
booundaries seeem permeablee. Thus, Gonzzalez and Brow
wn predicted that high stattus minority
m
members woulld avoid recattegorization and
a show morre intergroup bbias relative tto low status
m
minority memb
bers. For low status group members, theey may be mootivated to ennhance their iddentity
w
when group bo
oundaries seem
m permeable,, because sharring an identiity with high status membeers can
booost their colllective self-essteem. Gonzaalez and Brow
wn predicted tthat both majoority and minnority
loow status grou
up members would
w
show more
m
outgroup
p favouritism
m after recateggorizing their
iddentity. For majority
m
memb
bers, recatego
orizing their id
dentity shouldd not pose a tthreat to the
diistinctivenesss of their grou
up identity, so
o should show
w less intergrooup bias than minority mem
mbers.
W
When group sttatus is taken into account, low status majority
m
membbers can potenntially enhancce their
iddentity by bein
ng part of thee superordinatte identity, wh
hereas high sttatus majorityy members acctually
reepresent the su
uperordinate identity and may
m subsequeently view low
w status majoority memberss
neegatively. Go
onzalez and Brown predicteed that the hig
gh status maj ority would bbe more biaseed than
loow status majority.
Fiinally, invokiing dual identtity as an iden
ntity managem
ment strategy should be moost important for
m
minority high status
s
and min
nority low staatus group meembers indep endent of grooup status.
A
According to Gonzalez
G
and Brown (2006
6), the formerr should be abble to protect their status annd the
laatter should bee able to beneefit from bein
ng part of an in
nclusive cate gory and maiintain their
suubgroup identtity, and thus would be exp
pected to show
w less intergrroup bias. Theey argued thaat high
sttatus majority
y group memb
bers would bee expected to show more inntergroup biass and low stattus
m
majority group
p members wo
ould be expeccted to exhibitt more outgrooup favouritissm, particularrly
w
when differencces in status are
a perceived as stable and legitimate.
To test their hy
ypotheses, Go
onzalez and Brown
B
(2006) conducted tw
wo experimennts to look at tthe
efffectiveness of
o the three caategorization strategies on intergroup biias, attitudes ffavouring inggroups
ovver outgroupss, during and beyond a con
ntact situation
n, and how theese strategies were affected by
grroup size and
d status. In Ex
xperiment 1, th
hey examined
d whether thee categorizatioon strategies w
were
m
moderated by group
g
size. In
n Experiment 2, they exam
mined whetherr strategies weere moderatedd by
grroup size and
d group status.. Because the two Experim
ments used a ssimilar paradiigm, only
Experiment 2 is
i described.
ntal design used by Gonzallez and Brown
n (2006) for E
Experiment 2 was a 3
The experimen
Categorization
n Strategy: Seeparate Indiviiduals vs. Onee Group vs. D
Dual Identities) × 2 (Groupp Size:
(C
M
Minority vs. Majority)
M
× 2 (Group
(
Statuss: High vs. Lo
ow) factorial ddesign. Particcipants were ttold
thhat the experim
ment was abo
out decision making.
m
Each experimentall session invoolved six
unnacquainted participants.
p
They
T
first com
mpleted a task
k that was alleegedly used too identify theeir
prroblem solvin
ng thinking sttyle, and weree assigned eith
her an “Analyytic” or “Syntthetic” probleem
soolving style. For the group
p size manipu
ulation, two off the participaants were cateegorized into one of
Paage 82
Humanssystems®
the styles fo
orming the minority
m
group
p, and the rem
maining four pparticipants w
were categorized into the
other style forming the majority
m
group
p. Participantts were told thhat the group sizes in the ssession
reflected naatural proporttions in the po
opulation, whhich was a 20//80% split. Annalytics weree the
minority grroup for half of
o the session
ns. For the grooup status maanipulation, paarticipants weere told
that one of the problem solving
s
group
ps was successsful at complleting about 668% of the tassks
relative to the
t other grou
up at about 61
1%. Analyticss were describbed as the higgh status grouup in half
of the sessions. Participaants were told
d that the infoormation abouut the two stylles was foundded on
research an
nd all of them were given a badge to weaar with eitherr “Analytic” oor “Synthetic”” on it.
Each subgroup worked independently
i
y on a group ddecision-makking task (Winnter Survival Task;
Johnson & Johnson, 197
75; cited in Go
onzalez & Brrown, 2006) th
that was desiggned to increaase group
nd group iden
ntity. Afterwaards, participaants indicated their level off identificatioon with
cohesion an
their group on a scale wiith items such
h as “Do you feel strong tiees with your fellow group
ndor, Matthew
ws, Wade, & Williams, 19986; Ellemers, Kortekass, &
members?”” (Brown, Con
Ouwerker, 1999; both ciited in Gonzalez & Brown)). Participants were then aasked to compplete a
cooperativee task that inv
volved ranking
g a set of traitts that would be most ideaal for a successsful
leader. Each
h batch of 6 participants
p
were
w randomlyy assigned to one of three ccategorizationn
strategies, which
w
were crreated using various
v
manippulations suchh as seating aarrangements,,
perceptual cues,
c
group laabels, photographs, etc. Paarticipants theen allocated reewards to thee people in
their session (local reward allocation)) based on theeir contributioons (not incluuding the self)) by
distributing
g 100 chips, and their alloccations were cconfidential. N
Next, to see w
whether their attitudes
from the co
ontact situatio
on were generralized outsidee of the situattion (general reward allocaation),
they watcheed two videottapes that werre allegedly m
made earlier oof Analytic annd Synthetic ggroups
working tog
gether (order was counterb
balanced) andd allocated rew
wards to the iindividuals inn the video
using 100 chips.
c
Particip
pants then ansswered manippulation checkk items (whicch were effecttive), and
rated the qu
uality of the contact
c
situation (e.g., coopperative, frienndly, close) annd their perceeptions of
differences in group stattus.
i
, Gonzalez an
nd Brown (20 06) found a ssignificant intteraction betw
ween group
For group identification,
status and size.
s
Specificaally, those in the minority low status coondition identtified less stroongly with
their subgro
oup than did those
t
in the minority
m
high status and thee majority low
w status conddition. No
other signifficant differen
nces were fou
und between cconditions. Reesults also shhowed a signifficant
main effectt for categorizzation strategy
y. Post hoc teests indicated that participaants in the
decategorizzation conditio
on rated the contact
c
situatiion less positiively than didd those in the dual
identity con
ndition. Particcipants’ rating
gs in the recattegorization ccondition, how
wever, did noot differ
from those in either the separate
s
indiv
viduals or duaal identity connditions. A siignificant inteeraction
between gro
oup size and status was alsso revealed. S
Simple effectss tests indicatted that membbers of
minority low status grou
ups rated the contact
c
situatiion less positiively than didd those in the majority
low status groups.
g
Gonzalez and Brow
wn did not obbserve any othher differencees between grroups.
For both local and generral reward allo
ocations, Gonnzalez and Brrown (2006) ccomputed an ingroup
bias index by
b subtracting
g the number of chips alloccated to outgrroup memberrs from ingrouup members
(values can
n range from -100
to +100; negative valuues mean outtgroup favourrability, zero m
means no
bias, positiv
ve values meaan ingroup favourability). Analysis reveealed a main effect of grouup status on
local reward allocations.. Participants in the high sttatus groups sshowed more bias than thoose in the
g
A maain effect of grroup size wass also observeed such that pparticipants inn the
low status groups.
minority grroups were mo
ore biased thaan those in thhe majority grroups. There w
was no main eeffect for
categorizatiion strategy. However,
H
all three strategiies limited inttergroup bias during the coontact
situation an
nd none of thee means were significantlyy different fro m zero. Categgorization strrategy did
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 83
noot interact witth group size or status. Forr general rewaard allocationn, a significannt three-way
innteraction wass observed am
mong strategy
y, group size and
a status (se e Figure 12).
Figure 12
2. Minority and
a
majority group’s bias
b
in gene
eral reward allocations
s in
Experiment 2. 14 (Gonzalez & Brown, 2 006, p. 763))
Sttarting with th
he minority groups
g
in the top
t figure, hig
gh status mem
mbers showedd significantlyy more
inngroup bias th
han low statuss members in both the sepaarate individuuals and one ggroup conditioons.
H
However, statu
us had no effeects in the duaal identity con
ndition. Theree were no diff
fferences amoong low
sttatus members. In majority
y groups in the bottom figu
ure, high statuus members shhowed signifi
ficantly
m
more ingroup bias
b than low status members for all thrree strategy coonditions in thhe majority ggroups.
Fiindings from Gonzales and
d Brown (200
06) show that all three cateegorization strrategies used during
thhe contact situ
uation limited
d intergroup bias
b (bias was near zero). H
However, grouup size and grroup
sttatus affected levels of inteergroup bias regardless
r
of categorization
c
n strategy. Hiigh status andd
m
minority memb
bers showed more
m
bias, deemonstrating that
t group sizze and group sstatus may bee more
poowerful than the strategiess being used and
a can remov
ve any positivve benefits gaained from thee
coontact situatio
on between th
he groups.
G
Generalizing beyond
b
the contact situation
n, Gonzalez and
a Brown (22006) found thhat group stattus also
haad an effect on
o intergroup bias such thaat members off high status ggroups were ssimply motivaated to
m
maintain their status. Howev
ver, when ind
dividuals weree allocating rrewards to meembers they hhad not
enncountered, group
g
size did
d not seem to matter.
m
Resullts showed thaat for membeers of minorityy
grroups, the duaal identity straategy worked
d best such thaat there was aalmost no genneralized biass for
14
Note. *Significantly different from zero at p < .01.
Paage 84
Humanssystems®
high or low
w status group
ps. In contrast, Gonzalez annd Brown fouund that high status seemedd to
exhibit ingrroup bias and
d low status members
m
seem
med to exhibit outgroup biaas in the separrate
individuals and one grou
up conditions respectively.. Contrary to what they hadd expected, liittle
difference was
w found bettween the reccategorizationn and dual ideentity conditioons. For majoority
members, none
n
of the strrategies limiteed bias for hiigh status grouups, which suuggests that oother
strategies may
m be requireed. Overall, Gonzalez
G
and Brown demoonstrated that identity mannagement
strategies, such
s
as chang
ges in categorrization, have potential to aaffect intergrooup perceptioons such as
ingroup and
d outgroup bias.
Schmitt and
d Maes (2002
2) were also in
nterested in pperceptions off ingroup biass, particularlyy in East
Germans. Unlike
U
Gonzaalez and Brow
wn (2006) thatt viewed ingrooup bias as ann outcome thaat should
be managed
d, Schmitt and
d Maes actually viewed it as an identityy managemennt strategy. Sinnce the
unification of Germany, the distinctio
on between Eaast Germans and West Gerrmans has creeated a
here, on many
y objectively measured dim
mensions, succh as econom
mic success, East
situation wh
Germans arre left feeling inferior to West
W Germanss, thus creatinng a negative ssocial identityy (see
Kessler and
d Mummendeey, 2002). To improve theirr negative soccial identity, Schmitt and M
Maes
suggest that East Germaans could emp
ploy social creeativity as a m
management sstrategy, and shift
comparison
n dimensions in their favou
ur. They arguee that these ddimensions shhould be deem
med
important to
o the ingroup
p and difficultt to measure oobjectively (e.g., cooperatiion, social conntact,
helping). Scchmitt and Maes
M
proposed
d that, in manaaging their iddentity, East G
Germans wouuld
“attribute higher
h
scores on
o socially deesirable persoonality traits tto themselves than to Westt German”
(p. 311). Th
his would be particularly
p
trrue of those w
who identify sstrongly with the East Germ
man
identity as the
t inferior so
ocial identity would be moore personallyy threatening tto them. Becaause West
Germans seee themselvess as the higherr status groupp, Schmitt andd Maes argueed that they w
would not
feel the neeed to engage in
i the same leevel of ingrouup bias.
Like Kessleer and Mumm
mendey (2002
2), Schmitt annd Maes (20022) consider noot only SIT, bbut also
the impact of relative deeprivation on intergroup
i
peerceptions. Unnderstood as tthe differencee between
what the paarticipants feltt they ought to
t have versuss what they fe
felt they did haave with resppect to
quality of liife (work and
d labour, prosp
perity, humann relations, hoousing and citties, and the nnatural
environmen
nt), they argued that relativ
ve deprivationn would havee a causal imppact on percepptions of
ingroup biaas. Schmitt an
nd Maes exam
mined ingroupp bias on a serries of 38 adjeectives. A facctor
analysis of the 38 items revealed a thrree factor struucture: sympaathy, personall integrity, annd
competencee. Taking the difference off ingroup ratinngs and outgrroup ratings yyielded a meaasure of
ingroup biaas. Social iden
ntity was asseessed only on the second (aand final) measurement occcasion of
their longitu
udinal study, and asked paarticipants to rrate themselvves on the deggree to which they
considered themselves East
E or West Germans.
G
Witth regard to inngroup bias, S
Schmitt and M
Maes
(2002) foun
nd that both East
E and Westt Germans fouund their ownn group to be somewhat m
more
sympatheticc and compettent compared
d to the outgrooup. Howeveer, on the integgrity scale, East
Germans raated themselv
ves as much higher than theeir West Germ
man counterpparts. This waas
particularly
y true of thosee who identifiied closely wiith their East German ingroup. On the oother hand,
West Germ
man participan
nts did not sho
ow any ingrouup bias on inttegrity. In facct, they rated tthe East
Germans ass much higherr in integrity than West Geermans. This outgroup bias negates the ingroup
bias seen on
n the other tw
wo dimensionss (Schmitt & Maes). Accoording to Schm
mitt and Maess, these
findings pro
ovide evidencce that East Germans
G
invokked social creeativity to maanage their ideentity,
enhancing their
t
status on
n dimensions that appear too be both impportant and haard to assess
objectively. Moreover, th
hey found thaat East Germaans perceivedd more fraternnal deprivatioon in all of
the quality of life dimensions measured, except forr the natural eenvironment ddimension. T
This
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 85
deeprivation waas somewhat lower
l
at Timee 2 than it waas at Time 1. O
On the other hhand, West
G
Germans rated
d themselves as
a highly frateernally privileeged at both T
Time 1 and T
Time 2.
To test whetheer relative dep
privation resullted in an incrrease in ingrooup bias, Schm
mitt and Maees
(22002) conducted a longitud
dinal regressio
on analysis prredicting ingrroup bias at T
Time 2 from inngroup
biias at Time 1 (to control fo
or bias tenden
ncies) and relaative deprivattion at Time 11. They foundd that
reelative deprivation at Timee 1 significanttly predicted ingroup
i
bias aat Time 2, buut this only
acccounted for 1% of the varriance in ingro
oup bias at Tiime 2. These findings are aalso consistennt with
a longitudinal trend
t
analysiss Schmitt and
d Maes condu
ucted that show
wed that relattive deprivatiion for
East Germans decreased fro
om Time 1 to Time 2.
B
Based on Schm
mitt and Maess (2002) study
y of high and low status grroups, East Geermans reporrted
m
much more relative deprivation in almost all domains compared to West Germaans, while Weest
G
Germans reporrted relative privilege.
p
Morreover, ingrou
up bias existeed only withinn the East Gerrman
grroup, specificcally on the diimension of in
ntegrity. Schm
mitt and Maees’ study sugggests that invooking a
paarticular identity managem
ment strategy, in this case social
s
creativiity, can influeence intergrouup
peerceptions.
C
Caricati and Monacelli
M
(201
10) were interrested in interrgroup bias ass a result of soocial competiition.
Inn particular, th
hey were inteerested in the effects of low
w, intermediatte, and high ggroup statusess on
inntergroup biass. The inclusion of an interrmediate grou
up is notable aas most resear
arch on social
iddentity theory
y has typically
y examined reesponses to status differencces between hhigh- and low
w status
grroups. Little research
r
has actually
a
exam
mined responses from groupps with an inttermediate staatus –
thhat is, they aree neither at th
he upper end nor
n the lower end of the soocial structuree, but are
hiierarchically between
b
a hig
gher and loweer status group
p on a specifiic dimension of comparisoon.
C
Caricati and Monacelli
M
(201
10) suggest th
hat intermediaate-status grouup members m
may choose tto
prrotect or imprrove their soccial position depending
d
on their perceptiions of the strructural conteext.
Inntermediate sttatus group members
m
may be more likelly to protect ttheir status in situations thaat
innvolve high so
ocial competiition and cond
ducive to losin
ng their interm
mediate statuus. In contrastt, these
m
members may be more likelly to improvee their social standing
s
and ccompare them
mselves to thee
hiigher-status group
g
when so
ocial competition is low. In
ntermediate status group m
members wouuld be
exxpected to sho
ow more biass toward the lo
ower status grroup when soocial competittion is high annd
m
more bias towaard the higherr status group
p when compeetition is low..
To test their hy
ypotheses, Caaricati and Mo
onacelli (2010
0) provided pparticipants w
with false feedbback
abbout their thin
nking style an
nd were categ
gorized into lo
ow, intermediiate, or high sstatus groups. To
m
manipulate soccial competition, participan
nts were asked to completee a memory taask in which
reesources weree limited or no
ot limited. Th
he former con
ndition was exxpected to eliccit greater soccial
coompetition (e.g., Brewer, 1986;
1
cited in
n Caricati & Monacelli).
M
M
More specificaally, in the lim
mited
reesource condiition, particip
pants were ask
ked to allocatee 90 seconds of extra timee among threee
annonymous meembers from each
e
of the th
hree groups, whereas
w
thosee in the not lim
mited resourcce
coondition weree able to give up to 90 seco
onds to each of
o the three m
members. The extra time would
bee used for a su
ubsequent meemory task. The
T study desiign was thereefore a 3 (ingrroup status: loow vs.
m
moderate vs. high)
h
× 2 (reso
ources: limited vs. not limiited) betweenn-subjects design. The depeendent
m
measures in the study were ingroup identtification (e.g
g., “How mucch do you idenntify with thee group
off Analytic/Miixed/Holistic thinkers?”) and
a intergroup
p biases (diffeerences betweeen ingroup aand
ouutgroup allocation scores)..
Foor intergroup bias, each grroup in Caricaati and Monaccelli (2010) sttudy was com
mpared to the other
tw
wo groups and
d, therefore, the
t mean of th
he two intergrroup biases inndicates overaall intergroupp bias.
Paage 86
Humanssystems®
Intergroup bias was anallysed as a 3 (iingroup statuss) × 2 (resourrces) × 2 (outgroup target: more vs.
less advantaaged) with th
he last factor as
a within-subjjects. Results revealed a siignificant stattus main
effect. The high status grroup showed less intergrouup bias comppared to the inntermediate annd low
status group
ps (the latter two
t groups diid not differ ffrom each othher). In additioon, there wass also a
target main
n effect in whiich there was more bias aggainst the advvantaged grouup than the
disadvantag
ged group. Th
here was also a marginallyy significant innteraction am
mong the threee factors.
Among low
w status group
p members, th
here was a tarrget main effeect, such that tthey were moore biased
against the high than inteermediate staatus group. Am
mong intermeediate status ggroup membeers, there
was a target main effect,, which was qualified
q
by a significant innteraction bettween target aand
resources. The
T interactio
on showed thaat, within the limited resouurces conditioon, intermediaate status
group mem
mbers were mo
ore biased agaainst high stattus group, whhereas in the nnon-limited reesources
condition, they
t
were equ
ually biased against the higgh and low staatus groups. F
Finally, amonng high
status group
p members, th
he target and resources maain effects weere both signifficant indicatiing that
they were more
m
biased against
a
the inttermediate thaan low status group and moore biased whhen
resources were
w limited th
han when they were not lim
mited.
Overall, Caaricati and Mo
onacelli’s (20
010) study dem
monstrated thhat status affects intergroupp bias.
When resou
urces were no
ot limited, meembers from tthe intermediaate status grouup were moree biased
against the high than thee low status grroup, as they predicted. Hoowever, whenn resources w
were
limited, meembers from the
t intermediaate group werre equally biaased against thhe high and loow status
groups, sho
owing a chang
ge in intergrou
up perceptionn as a result oof social comppetition. Cariccati and
Monacelli argued
a
that in
ntermediate grroup memberrs may feel thhreatened by a potential shiift in
status from both directio
ons, i.e., high and low statuus groups. Thheir research thhen shows a
connection between iden
ntity managem
ment strategiees and intergrroup perceptioons.
ossible way id
dentity manag
gement strateggies can influeence intergroup perceptionns is by
Another po
mediating responses
r
to group
g
threat or
o disadvantagge. Reactionss to threat to oone’s ingroup can lead
to group-baased anxiety (e.g.
(
Wohl, Brranscombe, aand Reysen, 22010) and angger (e.g. Van Z
Zomeran,
Spears, and
d Leach, 2008
8), which can then lead to nnegative perceptions towarrd outgroups. Social
identity maanagement strategies, such as social com
mpetition, mayy emerge to m
mitigate thesee reactions
to ingroup threat,
t
thereby
y influencing
g intergroup pperceptions. W
Wohl and colleagues (20100) were
specifically
y interested in
n understandin
ng how extincction threats aabout one’s inngroup wouldd affect
group-based anxiety (or collective angst) and intraagroup behaviiour. They arggued that extiinction
threat is a special
s
case off distinctiveness threat, annd hypothesizeed that, whenn invoked, woould foster
a desire to strengthen
s
thee ingroup agaainst possible future threatss. To test thiss hypothesis, tthey
conducted three
t
studies and
a found thaat extinction tthreats resulteed in collectivve angst and ssupport for
ingroup streengthening beehaviours, reg
gardless of whhether the exttinction threaat stemmed froom the
physical or symbolic dem
mise of a univ
versity, threattened culturall extinction of French Cannadians, or
from threats related to hiistorical extin
nction of the JJewish Holoccaust. Wohl ett al.’s research suggests
that strategiies, such as co
ollective actio
on or social ccompetition, uused to managge identity thrreat may
promote neegative intergrroup perceptions as a conssequence in orrder to preserrve social idenntity. In
their own words,
w
“a poteential negativee consequencce of extinctioon threat is thhat by elicitingg
collective angst,
a
the stag
ge may be set for justifyingg aggressive aaction towardd adversarial
groups…W
When collectiv
ve angst is exp
perienced, acttions taken too strengthen aand protect thee ingroup
are likely to
o be endorsed
d. At the extreeme, ingroup strengtheningg may serve tto legitimize ooutgroup
harm doing
g, that is, harm
m committed in
i the name oof protecting tthe ingroup frrom possible
extinction.”” (p. 907).
Another em
motional respo
onse to ingrou
up threat or coollective disaadvantage is aanger. Van Zoomeran
and colleag
gues (2008) ex
xamined the relationship
r
bbetween groupp-based angerr, group identtity and
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 87
coollective actio
on (i.e., sociall competition
n) in response to collective disadvantagee. Specificallyy, they
prredicted that for
f members of a disadvan
ntaged group, group identitty would incrrease group-based
annger which would
w
lead to collective
c
actiion based on emotion-focuused coping. O
On the other hhand,
m
members of a disadvantaged
d
d group who did not identiify closely wiith the group would be lesss likely
too engage in co
ollective actio
on, unless they
y feel that thee collective acction would bbe of benefit tto them
annd the group (group
(
efficaccy). Group effficacy is then
n conceptualizzed as problem
m-focused cooping.
A
According to Van
V Zomeran et al. (p. 357
7), “we expectt the relevancce of group iddentity to facillitate
em
motion-focused coping and
d to moderatee problem-foccused coping with collectivve disadvantaage”.
Inn the first stud
dy, Van Zomeeran et al (200
08) assessed protesters
p
at a demonstratiion against finnancial
cuuts to higher education.
e
Ussing survey daata, they evaluated particippants’ level of identificatioon with the
sttudent group (e.g.,
(
“I see myself
m
as a stu
udent”), group
p-based angerr (e.g., “I feell angry becauuse of this
prroposal”), gro
oup efficacy (e.g.,
(
“I think together we are
a able to chhange this situuation”), and collective
acction tendencies (e.g., “I would
w
particip
pate in a futuree demonstratiion to stop thiis proposal”)..
To assess whetther group-baased emotionss mediate the relationship bbetween idenntification andd collective
acction tendencies, a series of
o multiple reg
gression analy
yses were connducted as suuggested by B
Baron and
K
Kenny (1986; cited in Van Zomeran
Z
et all., 2008). Van
n Zomeran et al. found thaat group identiification
prredicted colleective action tendencies
t
as well as group
p-based angerr. However, w
when group-bbased anger
w
was entered intto the equatio
on, predicting
g collective acction tendenciies, group ideentification was no
loonger a signifficant predicto
or. Together, these
t
results imply
i
that grooup-based annger does meddiate the
reelationship beetween group identification
n and collectiv
ve action tenddencies.
To assess whetther group ideentity moderaated the impacct of group effficacy on colllective actionn, Van
Zomeran et al (2008) follow
wed the procedures suggestted by Aiken and West (19991; cited in V
Van
Zomeran et el.). Specifically
y, they ran a multiple
m
regreession analysis to predict ccollective actiion
teendencies from
m group identtification, gro
oup-based ang
ger, and groupp efficacy as well as the grroup
iddentification × group-based
d anger and group
g
identificcation × groupp efficacy intteraction term
ms. The
reesults showed
d that there waas a significan
nt main effectt of group-baased anger, suuch that those who
w
were higher in group-based anger indicatted a greater tendency
t
tow
wards collectivve action.
Fuurthermore, th
here was a sig
gnificant grou
up identificatiion × group eefficacy interaaction. Speciffically,
am
mong those who
w had a low
w identificatio
on with the gro
oup, strongerr collective acction tendenciies
w
were associated with strong
ger beliefs abo
out group effiicacy. On the other hand, thhere was no
asssociation bettween group efficacy
e
and collective
c
actiion among paarticipants whho were highlyy
iddentified with
h the group.
Inn the second study,
s
Van Zo
omeran et al (2008)
(
manipu
ulated the sallience of partiicipants’ grouup
veersus their personal identitty. They did th
his by getting
g participants to write abouut the typical day in
thheir life as eith
her a student (group identiity condition) or as an indivvidual (persoonal identity
coondition). Aftter being rand
domly assigneed to conditio
on, participantts were told thhat universityy board
haad plans to raaise the annuaal college feess paid by stud
dents and that this increase would be deccided
w
without input from
f
studentss themselves. Group-based
d anger, groupp efficacy, andd collective aaction
teendencies werre then assesssed using simiilar measures as in Study 11.
V
Van Zomeran et al (2008) found
fo
that gro
oup-based ang
ger and collecctive action teendencies werre
hiigher among participants
p
in
n the group id
dentity condittion than in thhe personal iddentity condittion. In
teesting the hyp
pothesis that group-based
g
anger
a
mediateed the relationnship betweenn identificatioon and
coollective actio
on tendencies, the results of
o Study 1 weere replicated.. In other worrds, the relatioonship
beetween group
p identity and collective acttion tendenciees was signifi
ficantly reduceed by the incllusion
off group-based
d anger, therefore indicatin
ng that group--based anger ddid mediate thhe relationshiip
beetween group
p identity and collective acttion tendenciees.
Paage 88
Humanssystems®
To test the hypothesis th
hat group efficcacy moderatted the relatioonship betweeen group identtity and
collective action
a
tendenccies, the analy
yses from Stuudy 1 were repplicated. Oncce again, Van Zomeran et
al. (2008) found
f
that gro
oup-based ang
ger predicted collective acttion. They alsso found that group
efficacy preedicted collecctive action. However,
H
thiss was qualified by an identtity salience × group
efficacy intteraction. Speecifically, amo
ong those in tthe personal iidentity condiition, greater group
efficacy waas associated with
w more collective actionn tendencies. This associaation was not significant
among partticipants in th
he group identtity condition . Thus, the hyypothesis thatt group identiity moderates
the relation
nship between
n group efficacy and collecctive action w
was supported,, as it was in Study 1.
The results of the two stu
udies conducted by Van Z
Zomeran and ccolleagues (20008) indicate that groupbased angerr is a significaant response to
t a group thrreat or disadvvantage. Specifically, groupp-based anger
was found to
t mediate thee relationship
p between idenntification annd collective aaction tendenncies.
Furthermorre, results dem
monstrated thaat individual’ s group identtity will impaact how that inndividual
copes with group disadv
vantages. Indiv
viduals with a strong grouup identity willl feel a strong sense of
group-based anger aboutt injustices, which
w
would llead to a greatter likelihoodd of collectivee action.
Though this research did
d not specificaally involve ggroup-based aanger towardss an outgroupp, it
demonstrates the importance of group
p-based angerr in relation too collective aaction. Both thhis research
by Van Zom
meran and colleagues (200
08) and the re search by Woohl and colleaagues (2010) demonstrate
that group-b
based emotions leads to id
dentity managgement actionn strategies, suuch as collecttive action (orr
social comp
petition). How
wever, only Wohl
W
et al. sugggests that in choosing a pparticular idenntity
managemen
nt strategy, su
uch as social competition,
c
iimplies negattive intergrouup perceptionss.
Another intteresting line of research lo
ooks at expresssing an ambivalent attitudde toward onee’s own
ingroup to manage
m
identtity threat. Pag
gliaro and collleagues (20112) consideredd ambivalencce as a form of
psychologiccal disengageement from th
he group, whi ch is used to manage a neggative social iidentity. They
y
were also in
nterested in th
he use of this strategy in reesponse to grooup threat. Sppecifically, thhey predicted
that when identity threatt is high (vs. low),
l
low stattus members w
who are weakkly identified with the
group woulld perceive th
he ingroup as more heteroggeneous, and iin turn, expreess more ambiivalence
toward it. Pagliaro
P
et al. also tested whether
w
perceiived ingroup variability mediates the efffect of
identificatio
on and identitty threat on am
mbivalence tooward the inggroup. They reasoned that when
individuals are asked to evaluate theirr own group uunder high iddentity threat, those with loow group
identificatio
on would psy
ychologically disengage froom the group by stressing greater intraggroup
variability, which leads to
t a negative evaluation off the group. T
This negative evaluation, however,
would be co
ontrasted agaainst their gen
neral tendencyy to evaluate tthe ingroup ppositively. Thuus, holding
both positiv
ve and negativ
ve evaluation
ns would lead to an ambivaalent attitude ttoward the inngroup. In
contrast, those with high
h group identiification woulld emphasize intragroup hoomogeneity aand express
more ingrou
up favouritism
m by evaluatiing the group positively.
To test their hypotheses,, Pagliaro et al.
a (2012) connducted a studdy using undeergraduate stuudents
from a med
dium-sized un
niversity. Partticipants answ
wered four item
ms that were used to assesss their
level of ing
group identificcation (e.g., “Being
“
Italiann is important to me”; Ellem
mers, Pagliaroo, Barreto,
& Leach, 2008; as cited in Pagliaro ett al.) and werre then presennted with the iidentity threaat
manipulatio
on. In past ressearch, Italian
ns have been sshown to connsider themsellves as havingg higher
status than Senegalese an
nd lower statu
us than Britissh (Mucchi-Faaina, Pacilli, P
Pagliaro, & A
Alparone,
2009, as citted in Pagliaro
o et al.). To manipulate
m
ideentity threat, Pagliaro et all. asked particcipants to
read fictitio
ous data that compared
c
Itallians’ econom
mic situation tto either Seneegalese or Brittish. In the
high identitty threat cond
dition, particip
pants were tolld that Italianns were dramaatically disadvvantaged
in terms of average salarries/unemploy
yment compaared to Britishh. In the low iidentity threatt
condition, participants
p
were
w told the opposite
o
that IItalians were much better off comparedd to
Senegalese. Next, participants answerred a manipullation check iitem regardinng the econom
mic and
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 89
occcupational conditions of Italians
I
comp
pared to Britissh/Senegalesee. Participantss also indicateed the
exxtent to which
h they considered Italians to
t be differen
nt from each oother in econoomic/occupational
teerms to assesss perception of
o intragroup variability.
v
Fiinally, particiipants indicateed their opiniion of
Ittalians on 12 unipolar
u
item
ms which consisted of six po
ositive (e.g., aapproval) andd six negativee (e.g.,
diisapproval) items. Responsses to these ittems were useed to computee an ambivaleence score.15
Paagliaro et al. (2012) used multiple
m
regreession analysiis to test the eeffects of ingrroup identificcation and
iddentity threat, and their inteeraction terms as predictorrs of perceptioon of intragrooup variabilityy and
am
mbivalence to
oward the ing
group. Resultss of a regressiion analysis reevealed that ffor perceptionn of
inntragroup variiability, there was a signifiicant main efffect of ingrouup identificatiion, but not foor identity
thhreat. As pred
dicted, there was
w a significaant interaction
n between inggroup identifiication and iddentity
thhreat. Simple slopes analyssis indicated that
t low-identtifiers of the iingroup perceeived less hom
mogeneity
inn the high com
mpared to the low identity threat conditiion. In contraast, high-identtifiers perceivved more
hoomogeneity in
n the high com
mpared to thee low identity
y threat condittion (see Figuure 13).
predicting perception of
Figure 13
3. Identifica
ation × Identtity Threat interaction
i
12, p. 44)
ingroup variabiility (Pagliarro et al., 201
Foor ambivalence toward thee ingroup, ideentification waas a significannt predictor. A
As anticipated,
thhere was a sig
gnificant interraction betweeen identificatiion and identtity threat. Sim
mple slopes annalysis
shhowed that low-identifiers reported morre ambivalencce toward thee ingroup in thhe high compared to
thhe low identity
y threat condition. In contrrast, high-iden
ntifiers report
rted less ambiivalence in the high
coompared to th
he low identity
y threat condition (see Fig
gure 14).
Ambivalence sccores were calcuulated using the following formula: (P + N)/2 - |P – N|, where P = positive attitudee score
annd N = negative attitude score. A constant of 1.55 was added to the scores to avooid negative respponses (see Thoompson,
Zaanna, & Griffin, 1995).
1
15
Paage 90
Humanssystems®
Figure 14
4. Identificattion × Identtity Threat in
nteraction p
predicting a
ambivalenc
ce toward
the ingro
oup (Pagliarro et al., 201
12, p. 44)
Mediation analysis
a
tested whether perrception of inntragroup variiability mediaated the effectt of the
identificatio
on and identitty threat interraction on am
mbivalence tow
ward the ingrooup. As menttioned
previously, the interactio
on effect sign
nificantly preddicted intragrooup variabilitty and ingroupp
ambivalencce. Perception
n of intragroup
p variability aalso significaantly predictedd ingroup ambbivalence.
When the in
nteraction and
d intragroup variability
v
weere entered ass predictors siimultaneouslyy,
intragroup variability
v
rem
mained a sign
nificant predicctor of ambivvalence towarrd the ingroupp, but the
interaction did not, providing supportt for mediatioon. The invertted model witth ambivalencce as the
mediator off the interactio
on on intragro
oup variabilitty was tested and not signiificant.
It appears th
hen that when
n social identity is threatenned, individuaals who are loow-identifierss with the
ingroup psy
ychologically
y disengage from the ingrouup by exaggeerating their pperception of iintragroup
variability, which leads to
t more ambiivalent evaluaations of the iingroup (Paglliaro et al., 20012).
Overall, thiis research shows that wheen individualss belong to a ddisadvantagedd group, the identity
managemen
nt strategy thaat they use to cope with id entity threat ((such as ambiivalence) can influence
their overalll evaluations of the ingrou
up. Pagliaro aand colleaguess suggest thatt expressing
ambivalencce toward the ingroup can be
b consideredd a social creaativity strateggy used to maanage
identity threeat. So though
h this researcch does not exxamine interggroup perceptiions, it does cconsider
ambivalencce as an identiity managemeent strategy, w
which can leaad weak identtifiers to view
w their own
ingroup as more
m
heterog
geneous and hold
h
both posiitive and negaative perceptiions about thee ingroup
as a conseq
quence. Reseaarch showing how ambivallence toward one’s ingroupp impacts inteergroup
perceptionss is needed. However,
H
it is appropriate tto say that thee kind of strattegy one invokes to
manage ideentity threat in
nfluences inteergroup perceeptions.
Similarly, Jetten,
J
Schmittt, Branscomb
be, and McKiimmie (2005)) examined w
whether social creative
strategies can help group
p members su
uppress the neegative effects of devaluatiion on group
identificatio
on. They exam
mined two social creative sstrategies thaat may help inndividuals oveercome
threats to th
he worth of th
heir ingroup: intergroup
i
diffferentiation aand intragrouup respect. Inttergroup
differentiation involves highlighting
h
the
t differencees between thhe ingroup andd the relevantt
comparison
n groups. Separating the in
ngroup from oother groups eenables indiviiduals to makke
intergroup as
a opposed to
o interpersonaal comparisonns and to estabblish a clear aand common identity
with other ingroup
i
mem
mbers. As such
h, group mem
mbership can pprotect individduals from thhe negative
effects of in
ngroup devalu
uation threat by
b emphasiziing the differeences betweenn their own ggroup and
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 91
otther groups. Research
R
has recently ackn
nowledged thee importance of intragroupp factors, suchh as an
inndividual’s staatus within th
he group or th
he amount of respect
r
an inddividual receiives from theiir
inngroup memb
bers (e.g., Bran
nscombe, Speears, and Elleemers, 2002; JJetten, Spearss, & Mansteadd,
19997; both citeed in Jetten ett al.).
Jeetten et al. (20
005) were parrticularly interested in intraagroup respecct, because thhey believe that
w
when the valuee of a group iss threatened, the respect th
hat an individuual receives ffrom their inggroup
m
members can help
h them man
nage the threaat to their soccial identity. A
According to Biernat, Vesccio,
annd Green (199
96; cited in Jeetten et al.), in
ntragroup resp
pect is a sociaal creativity sstrategy becauuse it
heelps individuaals focus on th
he positive asspects of theirr group membbership to hellp them cope with
vaalue threats to
o their ingrou
up. Moreover, past work haas shown thatt intragroup reespect can prootect
grroup identificcation and inccrease loyalty to the group (e.g., Branscoombe et al., 22002, as citedd in
Jeetten et al.).
Jeetten and colleagues (2005) hypothesizeed that the soccial creative sstrategies wouuld counteracct the
neegative effectts of a value threat.
t
In otheer words, valu
ue threats of thhe group wouuld lead to inccreased
peerceptions of intergroup diifferentiation and intragrou
up respect, whhich should thhen lead to ann
inncrease in gro
oup identificattion. The hyp
potheses suggeest that valuee threats to a ggroup can havve a
diirect negativee effect on gro
oup identificaation, but that social creativve strategies ccan have a poositive
efffect, and as such
s
the strateegies suppress the negativee effects. Thiss pattern of fiindings is connsistent
w
with a suppressor model, wh
hich is a speccial case of mediation (Barron & Kenny,, 1996; cited iin
Jeetten et al.).
To test their hy
ypotheses, Jettten et al. (200
05) provided participants w
with false feeedback about hhow
otther groups perceived theirr residential state
s
(Queenslland, in Austrralia). To mannipulate valuee
thhreat, participants were told
d that Australlians in other states generaally viewed Q
Queensland as either
neegative (high value threat condition)
c
or positive (low
w value threat condition). T
Then, effectivveness
off the manipulation (e.g., “O
Overall, otherrs consider Qu
ueenslanders as good”; adapted from puublic
seelf-esteem scaale, Luhtanen
n & Crocker, 1992;
1
cited in
n Jetten et al.)) intergroup ddifferentiationn (e.g.,
“T
There are man
ny differences between Qu
ueensland and
d other states””), intragroupp respect (e.g., “In
geeneral, I feel valued
v
by oth
hers in my gro
oup”; adapted
d from Deauxx, Reid, Mizraahi, & Cottingg,
19999; cited in Jetten
J
et al.), and group ideentification (ee.g., “I identiffy with other Queenlanderrs”;
addapted from Jetten,
J
Bransccombe, Schmiitt, & Spears, 2001; cited iin Jetten et al..) were assesssed.
A
Analyses show
wed that the vaalue threat maanipulation had no effect oon group idenntification, buut did
afffect intergrou
up differentiaation and intraagroup respecct. Specificallly, those in thhe high value tthreat
coondition show
wed more inteergroup differrentiation and
d more intragrroup respect ((this latter efffect
w
was only marg
ginal) than did
d those in the low value thrreat conditionn. Mediation aanalyses using
reegression show
wed that theree was no effeect of value th
hreat on groupp identificatioon. In additionn,
reelation betweeen value threaat and identifi
fication contro
olling for the two social creeative strateggies,
shhowed that th
hreat to the value of a group
p led to increaased percepti ons of intergrroup differenttiation
annd intragroup
p respect, whicch in turn, enhanced group
p identificatioon. Also, by aadding the twoo social
crreative strateg
gies as predictors, value threat negativelly predicted ggroup identifiication. Takenn
toogether, Jetten
n et al.’s (200
05) findings providing supp
port for the reesearchers’ suuppressor moddel
(ssee Figure 15)).
Paage 92
Humanssystems®
1 Suppres
ssor model testing rela
ationships b
between the
e perceived
d group
Figure 15.
devalu
uation manipulation, grroup identiffication, inttergroup diffferentiation
n, and
intragroup res
spect. 16 (J etten et al., 2005, p. 21
12)
Jetten et al.’s (2005) find
dings demonsstrate that botth intergroup differentiatioon and intragroup
respect serv
ve an identity
y-enhancing management
m
sstrategies wheen individualss’ ingroup is tthreatened.
Furthermorre, it is possib
ble that individ
duals who doo not engage iin these social creative straategies
may distancce themselvess from the ing
group under vvalue threat, aand may turn to more direcct
strategies, such
s
as indiviidual mobility
y, to manage ttheir identity threat. Furtheer research shhould
examine if higher identiffication with the ingroup aas a result of tthese manageement strategiies leads to
negative inttergroup percceptions and evaluations.
e
Roberts, Seettles, and Jelllison (2008) examined
e
the factors that iinfluence the strategies inddividuals
use to manaage a devalueed social identtity, includingg response to recent discrim
mination. Thiis research
focused on two particulaar types of strrategies that inndividuals caan use to manaage their negaative
social identtity. First, the disadvantageed group mem
mbers can usee social recateegorization strrategies in
which indiv
viduals try to avoid being categorized
c
innto the devaluued group, buut instead beinng
categorized
d into an altern
native group that is more ffavourable as individuals ooften belong tto multiple
social group
ps and have multiple
m
identtities (e.g., Doovidio, Kawaakami, & Gaerrtner, 2000; ccited in
Roberts et al.).
a This can involve activ
vely suppressiing the devaluued category (e.g., avoidinng
behaviours that make thee devalued caategory more salient) and ttrying to seem
m more similaar to the
members off the favourab
ble group. Seccond, individduals can use ppositive distinnctiveness strrategies in
which grou
up members trry to foster a more
m
positivee perception oof the devalueed group by ppublicly
acknowledg
ging their mem
mbership in the
t group, infforming otherrs about the faavourable quaalities of
the group, or
o bolstering the
t group (e.g
g., Ellemers eet al., 2002; M
Major, Quintoon, McCoy, &
Schmader, 2000; cited in
n Roberts et al.).
a
a (2008) preedicted that in
ndividuals woould use sociaal recategorizaation and posiitive
Roberts et al.
distinctiven
ness if they peerceive that th
heir social grooup is devalueed because booth types of sstrategies
aim to conttrol others’ im
mpressions about the devaluued group. H
However, theyy may be moree inclined
to use one over
o
the otherr depending on
o the contextt. The choice of strategy m
may also depennd on how
important th
he social iden
ntity to a grou
up member’s self-concept ((e.g., Ashmorre, Deaux, &
McLaughlin
n-Volpe, 200
04; cited in Ro
oberts et al.) bbecause, in cllaiming the deevalued identtity,
individuals are permitted
d to behave in
n a way that iss consistent w
with their percceptions abouut
themselves. It is probablly that those who
w attach moore centralityy to their devaalued social iddentity
16
Path weightts are standardizzed. *p < .05, **pp < .01, ***p < .0001, one-tailed.
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 93
m
may be more liikely to use positive
p
distin
nctiveness and
d less likely too use social reecategorizatioon. On
thhe other hand,, individuals who
w attach more
m
centrality
y to an alternaate social idenntity that is viiewed
m
more favourab
bly may be mo
ore likely to use
u social recaategorization to downplay their membeership
w
with the devalu
ued group.
R
Roberts and co
olleagues (200
08) tested their hypothesess across two qquestionnaire studies. In Sttudy 1,
thhey examined
d how women in a science--related field strategically
s
m
managed concerns relatingg to
Roberts et al..), women aree often
thheir gender id
dentity. Accorrding to Barbeercheck (2001
1; as cited in R
faaced with a co
ontradiction between
b
what is expected of
o them as woomen (e.g., nuurturing and
em
motional) and
d as a scientist (e.g., being rational and objective),.Th
o
hese conflicting expectatioons
m
may lead to geender discrimiination from male
m colleagu
ues and, as suuch, lead to thhe perception that
thhey are less vaalued than theeir male coun
nterparts in science-related domains (Keeller, 2001; ciited in
R
Roberts et al.).
W
Women who were
w studying or working in a science-reelated field w
were recruited for Roberts eet al.’s
(22008) study. First,
F
they asssessed how offten participan
nts engaged inn the two typpes of strategiees.
Foour items ask
ked about the extent to whiich they used social recateggorization as a strategy to
m
manage their gender
g
identity
y concerns by
y decreasing the
t salience oof their gender or increasinng the
saalience of oth
her identities. Positive distinctiveness waas also assesssed on four iteems asking abbout
thhe frequency with
w which th
hey tried to in
ncrease otherss’ positive perrceptions of w
women by eduucating
otthers about th
heir gender orr by acting as an exemplar of the group. Both of thes e measures w
were
addapted from Morgan’s
M
(2002; cited in Roberts
R
et al.) Positive Disttinctiveness ssubscale in thee
Soocial Identity
y-Based Impreession Manag
gement Scale.
R
Roberts et al. (2008)
(
then measured
m
the predictors
p
of the
t strategies . Participants provided
deemographic in
nformation, in
ncluding racee (woman of colour
c
vs. whhite woman) aand professionnal
sttatus (worker vs. student). Next, particip
pants’ recent experiences oof gender disccrimination w
were
asssessed by ind
dicating the frequency
fr
of those experien
nces and how
w bothersome they felt (adaapted
frrom Daily Racist Hassles Scale,
S
Harrell, 1994, as citeed in Robertss et al.). For exxample, they were
assked whether any classmattes (or colleag
gues) had receently insultedd them or advvised them to switch
too another disccipline becausse of their gen
nder. Then, geender centraliity and scienttist centrality were
ments
asssessed by ask
king participaants to indicatte their agreem
ment with a sseries of statem
coorresponding to being a wo
oman (e.g., “B
Being a woman is an impoortant reflectioon of who I aam”)
annd being a sciientist respecttively. Both centrality
c
meaasures were addapted from tthe Centralityy
suubscale of thee Multidimenssional Invento
ory of Black Identity
I
(Sell ers, Rowley, Chavous, Shelton,
& Smith, 1997
7; cited in Rob
berts et al.).
U
Using regressio
on analyses, Roberts
R
et al. (2008) found
d that the use of both sociaal recategorizaation
annd positive diistinctiveness were associaated with morre recent expeeriences of geender discrimiination
annd when partiicipants were more bothereed by those ex
xperiences. P
Participants w
who reported thheir
geender as being more imporrtant to their self-concept
s
compared
c
to bbeing a scienttist were som
mewhat
leess likely to use social recaategorization (marginally
(
significant)
s
annd more likelyy to use posittive
diistinctivenesss. In contrast, the more partticipants iden
ntified as a sciientist the moore likely theyy
soocially recateg
gorized (marg
ginally signifi
ficant). The fin
ndings from S
Study 1 mostly supported the
R
Roberts and co
olleagues’ hyp
potheses. How
wever, they did
d not find a ssignificant relation betweeen
geender centraliity and social recategorizattion, and the relation
r
betw
ween scientist centrality andd social
reecategorizatio
on did not reacch significancce.
Inn a second stu
udy, Roberts et
e al. (2008) largely replicaated the findinngs from Studdy 1 by exam
mining
B
Black medical students and their experiences of being
g negatively stereotyped (i..e., being lesss
quualified for medical
m
schooll than non-Black students)). In general, tthey found thhat participantts were
Paage 94
Humanssystems®
more likely
y to use sociall recategorizaation if they pllaced less impportance on rracial centrality and
more imporrtance on theiir professionaal identity. Peerceptions of rracial stereotyyping, howevver, did not
predict the use of social recategorizattion. Participaants were morre likely to usse positive
distinctiven
ness the more they perceiveed themselve s to be negatiively stereotyyped and the m
more they
valued theirr race. The more
m
participan
nts used posittive distinctivveness, the lesss depressed tthey
reported, th
he less likely they
t
were to consider
c
quittting medical sschool, and thhe more comm
mitted
they were to their mediccal career. Theese outcomess were not obsserved for soccial recategorrization.
gs from Roberrts and colleaagues (2008) sstudy suggestt that women and Black m
medical
The finding
students aree unlikely to be
b passive tarrgets of discriimination andd stereotypingg. Those indivviduals
who belong
g to a “devalu
ued” social gro
oup do, howeever, seek to cchange otherss’ perceptionss of them
by correctin
ng inaccurate perceptions. Intergroup peerceptions can
an be altered, ttherefore, usiing
identity maanagement strategies like so
ocial recategoorization and positive distiinctiveness.
Table 13 su
ummarizes thee research exp
plored in this chapter, inveestigating the influence of identity
managemen
nt strategies on
o intergroup perceptions. Indeed, the reesearch abovee suggests thaat
strategies can shape intergroup percep
ptions.
Table 13. Summary of
o Research
h Assessing
g the Relatio
onship Betw
ween Socia
al Identity
Management Sttrategies an
nd Intergrou
up Perceptions
Reference
Outco
ome
Identity Management
Strategy
Gonzalez & Broown
(2005)
Ͳ In contact
c
situations, high status and m
minority group mem
mbers are more
biassed, but the use of
o identity manageement strategies lim
mit this bias.
Ͳ Outtside of contact sittuations, dual idenntity categorizationn reduces bias forr
minnority group membbers only.
Decategorizzation,
recategorizaation, dual
identity (Indiividual
mobility)
Schmitt & Maess (2002)
Ͳ Ingroup bias by mem
mbers of a low stattus group is related to decreases in
perrceptions of relativve deprivation ove r time.
Ͳ Ingroup bias moderates the impact of rrelative deprivatioon on mental health
succh that when indiviiduals exhibited inngroup bias relativve deprivation does
not impact mental heealth whereas wheen individuals do nnot exhibit ingroupp
biass, greater feelingss of relative deprivvation are associatted with poorer
mental health.
creativity)
Caricati & Monaacelli
(2010)
Ͳ Ingroup identificationn is associated withh the ability to maake downward
soccial comparisons.
Ͳ Inteermediate status group
g
members arre more biased aggainst high status
grooups than low statuus groups when reesources are unlim
mited, but equally
biassed against both when
w
resources a re limited.
Negative ouutgroup bias
(Social competition)
Wohl, Branscom
mbe, &
Reysen (2010)
Ͳ Ingroups experience more angst and ddisplay more ingrooup strengthening
behhaviours when thee potential extinctioon of the group orr threats to
disttinctiveness are made
m
salient.
Ͳ Thrreatening a groupss existence may leead to strong proteective activities that
may include harmingg the outgroup to m
maintain the ingrouup’s
disttinctiveness.
Ingroup streengthening
behaviours ((Social
competition))
Van Zomeren, Spears,
S
& Leach (2008))
Ͳ Stroongly identified group members aree likely to feel grouup-based anger at
injuustice and engage in collective actioon whereas weaklyy identified group
members will only enngage in collectivee action if they fee l that the group caan
actually do something about the injustiice (i.e., group effiicacy).
Collective acction (Social
competition))
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 95
Paagliaro, Alparone,
Paacilli, & Mucchi-Faaina
(2012)
mbivalence
Ͳ Members of a low status group are more likkely to express am
towardss their ingroup in high
h social identity threat situations w
when they are
weakly identified with the ingroup.
Ͳ Members of a low status group who are strrongly identified wiith their
ingroup express less ambbivalence towards their ingroup in hiigh social
identity threat situations.
e
are mediateed by intragroup variability
v
(i.e., in hhigh threat
Ͳ These effects
situationns, weak identifierrs see more ingrouup dissimilarity leaading to greater
ambivalence).
Ambivalence tow
wards
ingroup (Individuual
mobility)
Jeetten, Schmitt,
Brranscombe, &
MccKimmie (2005)
Ͳ Threats to the value of ann ingroup increasee the use of social creative
strategiees such as intergrroup differentiationn and intragroup reespect and
these buuffer against decreeased ingroup ideentification in respoonse to threat.
Intergroup differeentiation,
intragroup respect (Social
creativity)
Rooberts, Settles, &
Jeellison (2008)
Ͳ Members of a devalued group
g
use both soccial categorizationn and positive
mbership to this grroup is important tto their selfdistinctivveness, but if mem
conceptt, they are more likkely to use positivee distinctiveness.
Ͳ Positivee distinctiveness was
w associated with positive outcom
mes, unlike
social reecategorization.
Social recategorization
(Individual mobility)
6
6.1
Perceptions of inngroup
variability (Social
creativity)
Positive distinctivveness
(Social creativityy)
Summary
The research has
h indicated that
t the use of individual mobility
m
strateegies, such ass employing a dual
iddentity, reduces the likeliho
ood of negativ
ve outgroup perceptions
p
am
mong low staatus groups. T
The use
off identity man
nagement straategies (e.g., ingroup
i
bias) by low statuss groups, reduuces their feelings
off relative deprrivation and increases
i
their mental heallth over time. Furthermore, the emphasiis on
poositive distincctiveness is more
m
likely to be associated
d with positivve outcomes eespecially wheen
grroup identity is important to
t the individ
dual.
Inn situations where
w
group id
dentity is threatened, strong
g ingroup ideentification results in more anger
annd collective action whereaas weaker ing
group identification resultss in more ambbivalence tow
wards
thhe ingroup and a greater lik
kelihood of em
mphasizing dissimilarities
d
with the ingrroup. Howeveer, if
soocial creative strategies, su
uch as intergro
oup differentiiation and intrragroup respeect, are used, these
thhreats can bufffer against deecreased ingro
oup identificaation and leadd to more positive outcomees.
Paage 96
Humanssystems®
7. Fe
eedback Loo
op – Ho
ow do Identity
Manage
M
ement Strategies Im
mpact Identitty
an
nd Gro
oup Sta
atus R
Relation
ns
(S
Socios
structural Beliefs)?
? (4.7.6
6)
The previou
us chapters fo
ocused on wh
hether the sociiostructural vvariables affeccted the use of identity
managemen
nt strategies and
a intergroup
p perceptionss, and whetherr identity mannagement straategies
affected inttergroup perceeptions. In co
ontrast, this chhapter focuses on the feedbback loop – thhat is, how
identity maanagement strategies influeence individuaals’ social ideentity and theeir perceptionss of status
differences. The literaturre search reveealed very litttle empirical eevidence thatt directly addrressed this
feedback lo
oop. Thereforee, in the sectiion below, ressearch findinggs that might provide insigght into the
feedback lo
oop are discusssed.
There is som
me indirect ev
vidence from
m Boen et al. (22006) indicatting that identtity managem
ment
strategies can affect sociial identity. Their
T
study sh owed that whhen employeees have an oppportunity
to move fro
om a lower-status to a high
her-status orgaanization duee to a merger, they may
psychologiccally disengag
ge from their old organizat
ation the higheer in status thhey view the nnew, postmerger orgaanization and
d the more theey tend to idenntify with this new organizzation. Althouugh Boen
et al. only speculated
s
thaat individuals distanced theemselves from
m the old orgaanization, this suggests
that individ
duals select strrategies that enable
e
them tto not only im
mprove their ssocial status, bbut that
may also make
m
it easier for
f them to id
dentify with thheir new sociial group. Unffortunately, thhey did
not assess group
g
relation
ns following the
t merger.
Other work
k suggests thaat identity man
nagement straategies may nnot be effectivve at all for m
managing
negative ideentity concern
ns, at least in the field (Keessler and Muummendey, 20002). The finddings from
Kessler and
d Mummendeey’s longitudin
nal study on tthe unificatioon of East andd West Germaany show
that there arre correlation
ns between thee strategies annd sociostrucctural variablees, but there iss little
evidence fo
or the causal influence
i
of id
dentity managgement, with the exceptionn of social
recategorization. This strrategy tended
d to foster perrceptions of im
mproved mateerial status foor the
lower-statu
us group (Eastt Germans), although
a
theree were no longg- term positiive effects forr using
this strategy
y. Kessler and
d Mummendeey challenge tthe assumptioon of a linear and sequentiaal process
for variablees within the social
s
identity
y model in thaat individualss do not necesssarily experience a
sequence off processes when
w
dealing with
w a negativve social idenntity. Instead, they believe that
individuals may have a configuration
c
of beliefs thaat try to balannce out their ssociostructuraal beliefs,
identity maanagement preeferences agaainst identificaation and percceptions of thhreat or opporrtunity.
In sum, emp
pirical research is necessarry to understaand the impacct of identity m
management strategies
on identity and group staatus relations and how thesse strategies w
work with thee other variables in the
social identtity model. Ho
owever, at present, there iss very little loooking specifi
fically at this ffeedback
loop.
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 97
TH
HIS PAGE IN
NTENTIONALLY LEFT B
BLANK.
Paage 98
Humanssystems®
8. Synops
sis (les
ss than
n 3,000
0 words
s–5
pa
ages) of Metthodolo
ogies Used tto
Manipu
M
late an
nd Mea
asure S
Socioc
cultura
al
Beliefs
B
and Id
dentity Manag
gemen
nt
Strategiies
8.1
Me
easures of
o sociostrructural va
ariables
Variable
Methhod
Scale
Studies using ssimilar
scales
Stability
mmendey et al. (1999);
(
Kessler
Mum
and Mummendey (22002)
1. I think the relationship between
East
E and West Germany
G
will
remain stable forr the next years.
T current relationship betweenn
2. The
East
E and West Germany
G
will not
change
c
easily.
3. The
T current relationship betweenn
East
E and West Germany
G
is just
teemporary (R)
1 = do noot agree at all/
completelly disagree,
5 = agreee very
much/com
mpletely
agree
Verkuyten & Reeijerse,
2008
Verkuyten, 20005
(Temporal) Sttability
m from McAuley, Duncan, &
Item
Russels (1992) caussal dimension
scale:
Is thhe cause permannent or temporarry?
1 = permaanent,
6 = tempoorary
Costarelli, 20122
mmendey et al. (1999),
(
Kessler
Mum
and Mummendey (22002)
Legitimacy
Humansystem
ms®
T West Germaans are entitled tto
1. The
be
b better off thann the East
Germans
G
(R).
2. Itt is justified that the West Germaans
are
a currently doinng better than thhe
East
E Germans (R
R).
3. We
W East Germanns can demand tto
be
b as well off as the West
Germans.
G
1 = do noot agree at all/
completelly disagree,
5 = agreee very
much/com
mpletely
agree
Social Iden
Page 99
Vaariable
Method
Leegitimacy
Costarelli (2012) and Scchmader et al.,
(2001)
r
/
1. I think it is justified / right
mate that Italian high school
legitim
studeents are consideered worse in
their past sports perfformance than
Frencch ones
2. Do yoou believe it is accurate
a
or
inacccurate that Stanfford is really
superior to UCSB?
Leegitimacy
Dumont and van Lill (2009)
1. Curreent economic diffferences
betweeen ingroup andd outgroup
peopple are just.
2. It is juustified, that ingrroup people
are doing
d
better in ecconomic
matteers than outgrouup people.
Peermeability
Peermeability
Paage 100
Mummeendey et al. (1999); Kessler
and Mum
mmendey (2002)
1. In principle, it is not difficult
d
for an
East German to be considered
c
as a
Westt German.
2. For an
a East German it is nearly
impossible to be regaarded as a
Westt German (R).
3. No matter
m
what effortt one makes,
an Eaast German will never become
a Weest German (R).
Scale
For question 11:
1 = not at all,
6 = very muchh
For question 22:
1 = strongly ddisagree,
7 = strongly aagree
Stuudies using similaar
scaales
Cosstarelli, 2012;
Schhmader et al., 20001;
Weeber et al., 2002
No informatio n about
scale providedd.
1 = do not agrree at all/
completely dissagree,
5 = agree very
ry
much/complettely
agree
Verrkuyten, 2005
von Hipppel (2006)
1. I am working as a tem
mporary
employee in hope of finding a
manent position.
perm
2. I think I have a good chance of
gettinng a permanent job
j through
tempporary assignmennt.
Humanssystems®
8.2
Ma
anipulatio
ons of the sociostru
uctural va
ariables
Variable
Manipulation
Example
Legitimacy
Research basis
for status
differences
Legitimacy
Fictitious
research articlle
comparing
o
performance of
ingroup and
outgroup
Legitimacy
Procedural
fairness
Costarelli (2012, Study 2) :
Legitimacyy of low ingroup status was mannipulated by tellinng
participantts that postseco ndary academicc achievement foor their
group mem
mbers tended too be worse than outgroup membbers,
and that thhis information w
was either basedd on 15 years of
research from
f
10 national universities (higgh) or 3 years off
research from
f
3 national uuniversities (low)).
Schmaderr et al. (2001, Sttudy 2):
Participannts were random ly assigned to a high- or low staatus
group by receiving
r
false feeedback on a peersonality test. B
Before
participantts found out how
w their group scoored on the perssonality
test, they were
w given a daata sheet describbing how their grroup
differed froom the comparisson group. Attacched to the data sheet
was also a fictitious reseaarch article that eelaborated on the
details meentioned in the ddata sheet. In thee illegitimacy conndition,
the researrch suggested thhat students at thhe two schools aare
equivalentt in both their accademic and inteelligence potentiaal,
whereas inn the legitimacy condition, studeents at the higheer
status schhool have better academic and inntelligence potenntial
than thosee at the lower staatus school.
Boen and Vanbeselaere ((2002):
Students were
w told that th eir performancee on a test wouldd be
comparedd to those from aanother class, annd depending onn the
results of this
t test, the bettter performing cclass would be
selected too judge a task thhat was in the prrocess of being
developedd by a professor and that the tassk is also a pleassant
one. Studeents were alwayys told that their class was
outperform
med by the outgrroup. In the legittimate condition,,
participantts were told thatt the rival class hhad followed thee same
testing proocedures as theyy did (e.g., givenn same amount of time
and students did the test iindependently). The experimentter also
stressed that the other claass had attained its higher scoree in a
fair way. Inn the illegitimatee condition, participants were told that
during thee testing session of the rival grouup, the test
administraators had to leavve the room for a few minutes annd
when theyy returned, somee of the studentss were working
together on
o the test, and ttheir collaboratioons were stopped
immediateely. The experim
menter told the sttudents that the
outgroup had
h attained a hhigher average uunfairly, but that s/he
was not inn the position to ddo anything aboout the situation.
Studiees using
similar
methoodology
Ouwerkerk and Ellemers ((2002)
Participannts were told thatt they would worrk as a group onn a
Group Woord Recognition TTask and that thheir performancee as a
group wouuld be comparedd to other groupss. The task was more
or less diffficult depending on the number of letters in the
anagram. Participants we re told that the ccomputer would
randomly assign twenty a nagrams to eachh group. The meean
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 101
Vaariable
Maanipulation
Leegitimacy
Taask leader
asssignment
Sttability
Paast
peerformance as
baasis for stability
of status
diffferences
Example
difficulty of thee anagrams that the participant’ss group completeed
was always 6.5. Upon compleetion of the anag rams, participannts
were informedd of the performaance of their gro up (always 68
points) and thee performance of
o the outgroup. In the low statuss
condition participants were told that the other group had scoreed
7 points higheer (i.e., 75 points) whereas in thee high status
condition, theyy were told that the
t outgroup hadd scored 7 pointts
lower (i.e., 61 points). Legitimaacy was manipuulated by alteringg
the supposed difficulty of the task
t completed bby the outgroup.. In
the legitimate condition, particcipants were toldd that the averagge
difficulty of thee outgroup’s taskk was 7.1 whereeas in the
illegitimate conndition, the difficculty was said to be 5.9.
Burke et al. (22007):
In a group of four
f made up of two males and ttwo females, thee
experimenter randomly assignned one person ssitting at the endd
of the table to be the moderatoor of a four discuussion questionss,
half of them peertained to malee issues and halff of them pertainned
to female issues.of the table too be the moderaator of a four
discussion queestions, half of thhem pertained too male issues annd
half of them peertained to femaale issues.
Scheepers (20009):
Using a within-subjects designn, participants w
were randomly
w status group bby receiving falsse
assigned to bee in a high- or low
feedback on a reasoning test. Then they comppleted three taskks
that would be allegedly used to
t measure theirr problem solvingg
t first two taskks being similar aand the third task
abilities, with the
being differentt in nature. Afterr the first task, paarticipants were
told that they would
w
be compleeting a second taask that is very
similar to the first
f task. As succh, the first task w
would be a goodd
indicator of hoow they would peerform on the seecond task. This
suggests that differences in sttatus would be sstable during thee
P
thenn moved on to thhe third task and
second task. Participants
were told that their performancce on the previoous two tasks
would not be a good predictorr of how they woould do on this
task. This information was inteended to give paarticipants the
perception thaat group differencces in status woould be unstable
during this finaal task.
Studies ussing
similar
methodoloogy
Scheeperss,
Ellemers, and
Sintemaarrtensdijk
(2009)
Halabi
Nadler & H
(2006)
Boen and Vannbeselaere (20022):
In the stable condition,
c
studennts were told thatt their class had
scored a 5 outt of 10 whereas another class haad scored an 8 oout
of 10 on a testt. The experimennted explained too the students thhat
this was a big difference between the two classses, and that it is
very likely thatt the classes would attain simila r scores if they
were to do thee test again the next
n day. The exxperimenter
labelled this difference as “uncchangeable” andd wrote the wordd
on the blackbooard. In the unsttable condition, sstudents were toold
that their classs scored a 7 out of 10, whereas the other class
scored an 8 ouut of 10 on the teest. The experim
menter told the
students that this
t difference was
w small and if tthe classes weree
Paage 102
Humanssystems®
Variable
Stability
Manipulation
Degree of
fluctuation or
change in passt
performance of
o
groups
Stability
Degree of
change
compared withh
other groups
Stability
Emphasizing
traditional
versus changing
roles.
Humansystem
ms®
Example
to do the test
t again the neext day, it is posssible that their class
would scoore higher than thhe outgroup. The experimenter
labelled thhis difference as “changeable” and wrote the woord on
the blackbboard.
Scheeperss, Spears, Doossje, and Mansteaad (2006):
Participannts were random ly assigned to bbe in a high- or loow
status group using false feeedback on an eestimation task w
which
showed thhat their ingroup either performeed better or worse than
the outgrooup respectively.. Perceived stabbility of group staatus
was manippulated by tellingg participants thaat group scores either
fluctuated a lot (unstable ccondition) or flucctuated a little (sstable
condition) in previous sesssions.
Studiees using
similar
methoodology
Nadleer and
Halabbi (2006);
Nadleer, HarpazGoroddeisky, &
Ben-D
David (2009)
a (2002):
Major et al.
In the stabble condition, paarticipants were ttold that comparrative
analyses over
o the past 5 yyears showed thhat, in general, thheir
school hadd performed worrse than the prestigious school oon
numerouss criteria (e.g., enntry into selectivve university
programs)). In the unstablee condition, participants were told that
comparative analyses oveer the past 5 yeaars showed that the
gap betweeen their school and the more prrestigious schoool was
becoming narrower.
A
Trifil etti, and Visintinn (2012)
Vezzali, Andrighetto,
In the stattus instability conndition, Italian paarticipants read an
article (adapted from The New York Timees and made to aappear
in the mosst popular Italiann newspaper) abbout the U.S. decclining
in the economic domain, bbut also stated thhat several natioons
me domain, especially Italy. In thhe
were on thhe rise in the sam
control condition, participaants read an article unrelated to the
relation beetween the U.S. and Italy and discussed how daaily
physical activity
a
has healt h benefits.
Scheeperss, Ellemers, andd Sintemaartensddijk (2009)
In an exam
mination of gendder relations, parrticipants were aasked
to debate about three topiics. They first staarted with the neeutral
gender deebate topic, “Harrd drugs should bbe legalized, andd be
sold by phharmacies,” and participants werre randomly assigned
to take thee opposing or deefending positionn. For the conservative
topic, the goal was to makke traditional gennder roles saliennt so
w
perceive ttheir status to bee stable. The toppic was
that men would
“After a chhild is born the m
mother (rather than the father) shhould
stay at home to care for it .” The progressive topic was designed
would
to make changing genderr relations salientt, so that men w
feel threattened due to thee instability of theeir status. The toopic
was “Moree subsidies for dday care centers should becomee
available so
s that women ccan stay workingg when they havee a
child.”
Social Iden
Page 103
Studies ussing
similar
methodoloogy
Vaariable
Maanipulation
Example
Peermeability
Eaase with which
meembers of a
low
w status group
caan be part of
higgh status
grooup.
Blair and Jost (2003):
In the permeable condition, paarticipants were told that they caan
join the managgement group (hhigher-status grooup) if they earneed
15 out of a totaal of 35 on a sett of problems, whhereas in the
impermeable condition,
c
they had
h to earn all 355 points to join thhe
management group.
g
Peermeability
Willingness of
higgher status
grooup to accept
meembers of
low
wer status
grooup
Boen and Vannbeselaere (20022):
In the permeable condition, low
w status studentts were told thatt
the high statuss students wouldd be willing to acccept students
from their grouup if they did well on a retest of tthe initial test thaat
was used to determine the staatus of the two c lasses. The
w
on the boaard that the otheer class was
experimenter wrote
“open” for thosse who scored high
h on the retesst. In the
impermeable condition,
c
low sttatus students w
were told that thee
high status claass would not bee willing to acceppt any members
from their classs regardless of their
t
performancce on the retest.
The experimenter wrote on thee board that the other class wass
“closed” for thoose who scored high on the reteest. (Participantss
performance on
o the test was randomly
r
assignned to be good vvs.
weak.)
8.3
Meas
sures of Social
S
Iden
ntity Mana
agement S
Strategies
s
Vaariable
Individual
Mobility
Individual
Mobility
Paage 104
Measure
Mummendey et al. (1999); Keessler and Mummendey
(2002)
W
1. I make anyy effort to be connsidered as a West
German.
2. It is my very wish to belong to the West Germans.
3. I try to livee as a West Germ
man rather than as an
East Germ
man.
Major et al. (22002)
1. America iss an open societty where individuuals of
any ethniccity can achieve higher status
2. American society is possibble for individuals of all
ethnic grooups
3. Individual members of a loow status ethnic group
h
status (R)
have difficculty achieving higher
4. Individual members of cerrtain ethnic groupps are
often unabble to advance inn American society (R)
Scaale
Studies
1 = do not agree at all/
com
mpletely disagreee,
5 = agree very
mucch/completely
agreee
1 = strongly disagreee,
7 = strongly agree
Humanssystems®
Variable
Measure
Scale
Social
Competition
Mummenndey et al. (1999); Kessler and M
Mummendey
(2002)
W Germans th at we are the
1. We will show to the West
e
Germanns.
more efficient
2. It is ouur goal not to be taught by the W
West
Germaans, but to teachh them ourselvess.
3. We froom the “new fedderal states” will vvery soon
show more initiative and
a commitmentt than the
West Germans.
Dumont and
a van Lill (20009)
1. Ingrouup people shouldd demonstrate thhat they are
the more successful group
g
in terms off economic
statuss.
2. I wantt ingroup peoplee to demonstratee that they are
the suuperior group in terms
t
of econom
mic status.
Niens & Cairns
C
(2002)
1. I wantt my community to demonstrate that it is the
superrior one.
2. I wantt my community to demonstrate that it is
culturaally superior.
3. My coommunity will very soon show m ore initiative
than the other commuunity.
4. I wantt my community to demonstrate that it is the
betterr one.
Caricati and
a Monacelli (2010):
To manippulation social coompetition, particcipants were
asked to complete a mem
mory task in whicch resources
l
and the fformer
were limitted or were not limited,
condition was expected too elicit greater ssocial
competitioon (e.g., Brewerr, 1986, cited in C
Caricati &
Monacelli, 2010). Specificcally, in the limiteed resource
condition, participants weere asked to alloocate 90s of
a
mem
mbers from
extra timee among three anonymous
each of thhe three thinkingg styles groups, w
whereas
those in the
t not limited reesource conditionn, were able
to give upp to 90s to each of the three mem
mbers. The
extra timee would be usedd for a subsequeent memory
task.
1 = do not agreee at all/
completely disaagree,
5 = agree very
much/completeely
agree
Social
Competition
Social
Competition
Social
Competition
Manipulation
Humansystem
ms®
Studies
No information about
scale provided.
1 = disagree strrongly,
2 = disagree,
3 = neither,
4 = agree,
5 = agree stronngly
Social Iden
Page 105
Vaariable
Measure
Scaale
Reealistic
Coompetition
(2002)
1. If new jobss arise in the nexxt five years, wee East
Germans will
w have to makke sure that these jobs
will be estaablished in East Germany rather than in
West Germ
many.
2. By now, enough has been
n invested in West
Germany. We East Germaans have to fightt for
future inveestments being exclusively
e
madee in East
Germany.
3. In the nexxt five years, we, the East Germaans, will
speak up in favor of the diversion of the raare
training allowances and grants from Westt to East
Germany..
(2002)
Difference beetween items (1-22):
1. I regard myself
m
as a Germ
man.
2. I regard myself
m
as an Eastt German.
Social Recateegorization subsscale (adapted frrom
Morgan, 20022)
Four items weere reworded to assess strategiees that
actively suppress the saliencee of a group (e.gg.,
avoiding discussions of gendeer)
Positive Distinnctiveness subscale (adapted frrom
Morgan, 20022)
Five items weere reworded to assess strategiees that
increase the positive
p
perceptiion held by others
regarding thee participants soccial group (e.g.,
educating othhers about womeen)
(2002)
Difference beetween the itemss indicate the East
Germans (low
wer-status groupp) devaluation off the
material dimeension (2-1):
1. The East Germans considder economic weealth as:
undesirabble-desirable.
2. The West Germans consider economic wealth
w
as:
undesirabble-desirable.
(2002)
1. Accordingg to your opinion, how important is it for
the East Germans
G
to compare themselvess with
the situation before the unnification?
2. Accordingg to your opinion, how important is it for
the East Germans
G
to compare themselvess with
West Germ
mans?
mpletely disagreee,
com
5 = agree very
mucch/completely
agreee
Soocial
Reecategorization
Soocial
Reecategorization
Poositive
Diistinctiveness
Ree-evaluation of
Material
Diimension
Prreference for
Teemporal
Coomparison
Paage 106
Studies
com
mpletely disagreee,
5 = agree very
mucch/completely
agreee
0 = not at all,
5 = a great deal
0 = not at all,
5 = a great deal
com
mpletely disagreee,
5 = agree very
mucch/completely
agreee
com
mpletely disagreee,
5 = agree very
mucch/completely
agreee
Humanssystems®
Variable
Measure
Scale
(De)valuation of
Dimensions
Adapted from
f
Valuing Suubscale in Major &
Schmadeer’s (1998) Intelleectual Engagem
ment Inventory
to assesss individuals’ perrsonal value of a novel
personality trait (i.e., surggency), used in S
Schmader et
al. (2001)):
1. Being high in surgenccy is very importaant to me.
2. I care a great deal aboout being high inn surgency.
3. It doesn’t matter to mee one way or thee other if I am
o low in surgenccy (R).
high or
Dumont and
a van Lill (20009)
1. If new
w jobs arise in thee next few yearss, ingroup
peoplee will make suree that these jobs will be filled
with outgroup
o
people rather than with ingroup
peoplee.
2. Southh Africa has long been invested iin Black
Econoomic Empowerm
ment. Ingroup pe ople will fight
for outgroup people coontinuing this invvestment
also inn the future.
1 = strongly dissagree,
7 = strongly agrree
Ingroup/outgrooup
favouritism
Nadler annd Halabi (2006))
Allocationn of funds to ingrroup and outgro up.
Prejudice:
Behavioural
intentions
Participants givven 7
possible allocattion
choices, three oof which
represented inggroup
favouritism (moore
resources alloccated to
ingroup than
outgroup), one of
which represennted
equal allocationns for
the ingroup andd
outgroup, and tthree of
which represennted
outgroup favouritism
(more resourcees
allocated to outtgroup
than ingroup)
1 = definitely yees
4 = neither/it deepends
7 = definitely noo
Jackson (2002)
(
Participannts rated how likkely they would bbe to accept
an outgrooup member as their
t
child’s playymate, good
friend, meember of churchh or club, work suupervisor,
United Sttates president, date,
d
coworker, child’s
teacher, family
f
physician, state governor,, sibling’s
spouse, and
a own spouse.
Jackson (2002)
(
(adapted from Byrnes annd Kiger, 1988) 7-point semantic scale
Participannts were asked to
t imagine a sceenario where
they are at
a a party and soomeone tells a dderogatory
joke abouut the outgroup and
a many peoplee laugh.
They werre asked to indiccate how they woould feel in
this situattion on five semaantic differential scales:
resentmeent-acceptance, funny-unamusin
f
ng, trivialserious, cruel-kind,
c
and smart-stupid.
s
Outgroup
favouritism
Prejudice:
Affective
dimension
Humansystem
ms®
Studies
scale provided.
Social Iden
Page 107
Vaariable
Measure
Scaale
Prrejudice:
Coognitive
dimension
Jackson (20002) (adapted from
m Byrnes and Kiger,
1988)
w asked to im
magine a scenario where
Participants were
they are at a party and someoone comments that
t the
mbers are causinng many of todaay’s
outgroup mem
social problem
ms. They were thhen asked to inddicate
how they wouuld feel about this statement on five
f
bipolar scaless: agreeable-oppposed, unfair-fair,
knowledgeabble-ignorant, closse minded-open minded,
and sympatheetic –unsympathhetic.
Jackson (20002) (adapted from
m Katz and Hasss, 1988)
Six items, for example:
1. Most [outggroup members] have the drive and
a
determination to get aheadd (reverse scoreed).
2. This counttry would be better off if more [inngroup
members] were willing to recognize
r
the goood
things aboout [outgroup] cuulture (reverse sccored).
Dumont and van
v Lill (2009)
1. I regard myself
m
as a singlee person rather than
t
as a
member of
o a certain groupp of people.
2. I would rather have nothinng to do with anyy of the
racial grouups in South Africa, including myy own.
3. I usually do
d not consider myself
m
as belongging to
any racial group.
Niens & Cairnns (2002)
1. I usually doo not consider myself as belonging to
any group.
2. In situations involving the Northern
N
Irish conflict, I
m community’s side.
automatically tend to take my
mmunity, I usually do not
3. If someonee attacks my com
take it personally.
4. I would rathher not have anyything to do with any of
the two com
mmunities in Norrthern Ireland.
Dumont and van
v Lill (2009)
1. I considerr myself as Southh African.
2. I considerr myself as blackk/white/coloured””
1. In this dayy and age with thhe European Unnion,
nationalism
m and patriotism
m are out of datee.
2. First and foremost,
f
I regarrd myself as Eurropean
rather than as a member of
o my denominaational
communitty.
7-pooint bipolar scalee
Prrejudice:
Coognitive
dimension
Individualization
Individualization
Suuperordinate
ree-categorization
Suuperordinate
ree-categorization
Paage 108
Studies
1 = strongly disagreee
7 = strongly agree
sca le provided.
1 = disagree stronggly,
2 = disagree,
3 = neither,
4 = agree,
5 = agree strongly
sca le provided.
2 = disagree,
3 = neither,
4 = agree,
5 = agree strongly
Humanssystems®
Variable
Measure
Categorizationn
Manipulation
Hornsey and
a Hogg (20022, adapted from H
Hornsey &
Hogg, 1999, 2000):
Participannts are presenteed with a task annd asked to
make deccisions, such as what should objjects and
services should
s
be includded for successfuul functioning
of a new park. In the supeerordinate condiition,
u
membber was
participannts’ status as a university
emphasizzed whereas theeir status as indivviduals was
not. In thee simultaneous condition,
c
particiipants’ status
as a univeersity member (ssuperordinate caategory) and
their statuus as a member of a specific facculty
(subgroupp category) weree emphasized.
Gonzalezz and Brown (2005):
Participannts were random
mly assigned to oone of three
categorization conditions:
1. Separrate individuals – no group categgory should
be sallient (e.g., particcipants wore shirrts with their
namess on it and worked on task indeppendently)
1. One group
g
– a commoon group identityy should be
salient (e.g., participants wore same-ccoloured
worked on
shirts with their univerrsity logo, and w
task collaboratively)
c
2. Dual identity – both thhe common and subgroup
identitties should be saalient (e.g., parti cipants wore
t-shirtss with a university logo, but subggroups wore
differeent coloured t-shhirts)
Tajfel, Flaament, Billig, andd Bundy (1971)::
Participannts allocated ressources among m
members of
the ingrouup and outgroupp using Tajfel maatrices.
Categorizationn
Manipulation
Material ingrooup
bias
(**instrumentaal
function of
ingroup bias,
which fosters
intergroup
competition –
Scheepers et al.
2006))
Symbolic
ingroup bias
(**instrumentaal
function of
ingroup bias,
which fosters
intergroup
competition)
Humansystem
ms®
Scale
Can also be measured byy looking asking participants
to allocatee rewards to inggroup and outgrooup
memberss.
Scheeperrs et al. (2006)
Agreement with ingroup favouring
f
(e.g., ““The detailed
perceiverrs group is a supperior group”) annd outgroup
derogatinng (e.g., “Global perceivers are bborn losers”)
statements.
Studies
Nadleer, HarpazGoroodeisky, &
Ben-David, 2009
In general, “pullscores” are calcculated
to assess the
tendency for
individuals to usse a
particular strateegy or
favour a particuular
group.
Scheeepers et al.,
20066;
von H
Hippel, 2006;
Gonzzalez and
Brow
wn, 2005;
Cariccati and
Monaacelli, 2010
0 = not at all,
100 = very mucch
w Tajfel matricees.
Can also be measured with
Social Iden
Page 109
Vaariable
Measure
Ingroup bias
Go/No-Go Asssociation Task (GNAT;
(
Nosek and
a
Banaji, 2001)
Used to assess implicit attituddes separately foor two
target groupss. Sensitivity scores were calculaated to
assess impliccit ingroup bias, as
a well as impliccit
ingroup and outgroup
o
evaluattions.
Nadler, Harpaaz-Gorodeisky, and
a Ben-David (2009):
(
Participants were
w asked to raate the ingroup and
outgroup on 5 bipolar adjectivve scales
(industrious/laazy, competitive/cooperative, cuurious/not
curious, creattive/not creative,, and intelligent/nnot
intelligent) byy marking a range on a 574-pixell axis
showing where they think moost group membeers fall
under.
Ingroup bias
Group
Identification
Manipulation
Chhange of
coomparison
dimension
Teemporal
coomparisons
Im
mplicit bias
Paage 110
Van Vugt & Hart
H (2004)
Participants were
w told that theeir performance on an
investment taask would be com
mpared to other students
(low group ideentification) or sttudents from anoother
university (higgh group identificcation.
1. Compared with the other coommunity, my
community might be in a worse economic situation,
s
but we do not
n consider ecoonomic situation
important.
community might be in a worse political situuation,
but we do not
n consider political situation im
mportant.
community might be in a worse social situaation, but
we do not consider
c
social situation
s
important.
1. For my com
mmunity, it is impportant to compaare its
situation today with its situaation two years ago.
a
mmunity, comparisons with the situation
s
2. For my com
two years ago
a are more important than
comparisonns with the otherr community.
Linguistic Inteergroup Bias (LIB
B; Maass, Salvi, Arcuri,
& Semin, 19889)
The broad ideea of the LIB is that
t when peoplee are
asked to desccribe the behavioor of ingroup andd
outgroup mem
mbers, the concrreteness or absttraction
within their deescription is likely to naturally vaary.
When peoplee are likely to desscribe the positivve
behaviours off ingroup membeers they are likelly to do
so more abstractly. For exam
mple, von Hippel (p. 536)
e
of how the
t act of helping
provides an example
someone acrooss the street coould be interpreted
differently inteerpreting on wheether it is perform
med by
an ingroup orr outgroup membber. For examplee, the
Scaale
Studies
Vezzalli eet al.
(2012)
Thee midpoint of thee
rangge was taken ass
partticipants’ evaluaation
of ggroup members oon
eacch of the scales.
Thee midpoints weree
addded together to
creaate an evaluativee
sco re for ingroup annd
outggroup members..
Schmitt aand
Maes, 20002
2 = disagree,
3 = neither,
4 = agree,
5 = agree strongly
2 = disagree,
3 = neither,
4 = agree,
5 = agree strongly
Stattements varyingg on
leveel of abstractnesss
andd concreteness
werre rated on a 10-poinnt scale with
“desscribes very pooorly”
andd “describes veryy
welll” as the anchorss.
von Hippel, 2006
Humanssystems®
Variable
Behavioural
Responses
Collective Acttion
Tendencies
Humansystem
ms®
Measure
Scale
positive behaviour
b
of an ingroup memberr could vary
from the relatively
r
abstracct “Brad is helpfuul”
descriptioon to a more conncrete descriptioon when
attributingg this positive beehaviour to an ouutgroup
member “Brad
“
helped thee blind person crross the
street” (p. 536). Similarly,, people are alsoo likely to
describe the negative behhaviours of outg roup
memberss in a more abstrract way, but aree likely be
more conncrete when desccribing the negaative
behaviours of ingroup meembers. These ddifferences
emphasizze the positive trraits (and diminissh the
importancce of negative beehaviours) of inggroup
memberss and the highlighht the negative ttraits of
outgroup members while lessening the im
mpact of
positive behaviours
b
(i.e., by limiting their impact to a
specific event
e
or situationn).
Boen andd Vanbeselaere (2002):
Context: students
s
from a class are told thhat they
performed worse (low staatus class) on a ttest relative
to students from another class (high statuus class).
Students are given the foollowing as actionns that they
can take:
Studies
1 = not at all,
7 = very much
a
which invvolves a
1. Individdual normative action,
requeest to take the tesst again so that they have
the oppportunity to join the high status class
2. Collecctive normative action,
a
which invvolves a
requeest for the entire class to be retessted and
hopeffully improve their performance
3. Individdual nonnormative action, whichh involves
signinng a prepared peersonal protest leetter to be
part of
o the high statuss class without a retest
4. Collecctive nonnormatiive action, whichh involves
signinng a prepared coollective letter whhereby the
class should take the place of the hig h status
class without the classs doing a retest
5. Accepptance, which invvolves acceptingg the test
outcome and being okk with not being able to do
the task that the high status group woould be doing.
van Zomeeran, Spears, annd Leach (2008) :
Collectivee action tendenccies
1. I would participate in a future demonsstration to
stop thhis proposal.
2. I would participate in raising
r
our collecctive voice to
stop thhis proposal.
3. I would do something together with feellow students
to stopp this proposal.
4. I would participate in some
s
form of coollective
actionn to stop this proposal.
5. I would sign a petitionn to stop this pro posal.
Social Iden
Page 111
Vaariable
Measure
Scaale
Deependencyorriented vs.
auutonomyorriented help
Nadler and Halabi (2006);
Participants asked
a
to select one
o of three choiices after
working on a problem that theey could not solvve:
1. not wantinng help from a sttudent who attennded the
other schoool and is also working
w
on the saame
problem (ii.e., avoidance of
o seeking help);
2. wanting thhe solution to thee problem from the
t other
student (i.e., seeking depeendency-oriented help);
3. wanting a hint from the othher student to heelp them
solve the problem
p
(i.e., seeeking autonomyyoriented help).
h
ms
Thee number of item
on w
which participannts
chooose to provide oor
askk for dependencyyvs. autonomy-oriented
helpp.
Exxpressing
am
mbivalent
atttitude toward
inggroup
Ingroup
favouritism
Deefensive
Heelping
Intergroup
Diifferentiation
(social creative
strategy)
Intragroup
reespect
(social creative
strategy)
Paage 112
a Ben-David (2009):
(
Nadler, Harpaas-Gorodeisky, and
Similar optionns were providedd to participants (as in
the measure above), but in thhe position of a helper.
h
Pagliaro, Alpaarone, Pacilli, annd Mucchi-Fainaa (2012)
Participants inndicated their oppinion of Italians on 12
unipolar itemss which consisteed of 6 positive (e.g.,
approval) andd 6 negative (e.gg., disapproval) items.
Ambivalent sccores were calcuulated using the formula
(P + N) / 2 - | P – N|, where P = positive attituude score
and N = negaative attitude scoore, and then a constant
c
of 1.5 was addded to the scoree in order to prevvent a
negative resuult (see Thompsoon, Zanna, & Griffin,
1995).
a Ben-David (2009):
(
Participants were
w asked to asssign four roles to
t
ingroup and outgroup
o
membeers that differed in their
level of prestige in a student newspaper
n
(e.g.., chief
editor, marketing manager, ettc.).
a Ben-David (2009):
(
In a 9 out of 12
1 trials, participants were told thhat an
outgroup mem
mber was havingg difficulty with thhe
problems, andd were asked if they
t
wanted to help
h the
outgroup mem
mber.
Jetten, Schmitt, Branscombe, and McKimmiee (2005):
1. There are many differencees between Queeensland
and other states.
2. Queenslannd is very differeent from other sttates in
Australia.
Jetten, Schmitt, Branscombe, and McKimmiee (2005;
adapted from Deaux, Reid, Mizrahi,
M
and Cotting,
1999):
1. In generall, I feel valued byy others in my group.
2. Queenslannders treat me positively.
p
3. I feel respected by other Queenslanders.
Q
4. I feel fully accepted by Quueenslanders.
Studies
1 = not at all,
6 = strongly
0 = extreme ingroupp
favoouritism,
7 = equal allocationn to
the ingroup and
outggroup,
14 = extreme outgrooup
favoouritism
Thee number of timees
thatt participants choose
to hhelp the outgroupp
mem
mber.
9 = strongly agree
9 = strongly agree
Humanssystems®
9. Scientiffic Stattus of the Co
onceptt of
Secularr and Scientif
S
fic Fun
ndame
entalism
m
Included in
n this chapter is a review off the scientificc status of thee concept of ssecular and sccientific
fundamentaalism. Existin
ng measures related
r
to thesse constructs are also identtified. Furthermore, it
investigatess how a secular, scientific or humanisticc fundamentaalist world vieew might influuence
health and well-being
w
ass well as cogn
nition.
9.1
Se
ecular and
d Scientific Fundam
mentalism
9.1.1
Fundamentaliism
In order to explore the meaning
m
of sciientific or seccular fundameentalism, it iss important to first
understand the meaning of fundamentalism in gen eral.
Merriam-W
Webster’s online dictionary
y offers two deefinitions of ffundamentalissm, includingg:
x
x
“a movement
m
orr attitude stresssing strict annd literal adheerence to a sett of basic prinnciples.”
(“F
Fundamentalissm,” n.d.)
“a movement
m
in 20th century
y Protestantism
m emphasizinng the literallyy interpreted B
Bible as
fun
ndamental to Christian
C
life and teachingg; the beliefs oof this movem
ment; adherennce to such
beliefs.” (“Fund
damentalism,”” n.d.)
nition emphassizing adhereence to a set oof principles ppresents a relaatively
The first paart of the defin
neutral view
w of fundameentalism, and makes no asssumptions aboout the types of principles that are
typical. Thee second part of the definittion shows thhe close relatioon between reeligion and
fundamentaalism, as exprressed in a wiide body of reesearch explooring religiouss fundamentalism (e.g.,
Altemeyer and Hunsberg
ger, 1992). According to C
Calhoun (20022; cited in Piggliucci, 2005,, p. 1106),
the Oxford Dictionary of the Social Sciences
S
definnes fundamenntalism as “a m
movement thaat asserts
the primacy
y of religious values in soccial and politi cal life and caalls for a retuurn to a ‘fundaamental’
or pure form
m of religion””.
Other descrriptions of fun
ndamentalism
m make more negative assuumptions arouund the naturee of
adherence to
t basic principles. For exaample, Pigliuccci (2005) arggues that at itts core, fundam
mentalism
is a specificc form of “ideeological intraansigence”. Inn his view, fuundamentalism
m extends beyyond
religion to political
p
and social
s
views as
a well, and hhe cites extrem
me positions ttaken by
‘environmeentalists’ or an
nimal-rights activists
a
as otther exampless of fundamenntalism. In thiis case,
then, fundaamentalism seeems to be desscribed as adhherence to a sset of principlles that are m
more
extreme thaan moderate, and perhaps not
n open to chhange. Other definitions seeem to indicaate that
fundamentaalism implicaates the relatio
onship betweeen oneself andd others, perhhaps making ppeople
more motiv
vated to give preference
p
to their own belliefs over thoose of others oor making theem less
likely to be tolerant of otthers. Vail an
nd colleagues state (2010, pp. 89) that “fuundamentalism
m entails a
fortress mentality in whiich security iss maintained bby continuallly affirming thhe superiorityy of one’s
own beliefss over all otheers”. This chaaracteristic off fundamentalism can be eqqually appliedd to
religious an
nd secular (no
on-religious) fundamentali
f
sm. As Seitz (2010, p. 5) aargues, “a bassic and
strongly held part of any
y type of fund
damentalism iis the view thaat the ‘believers’ are in poossession
of the truth and that they
y have the righ
ht, indeed dutty to make evveryone acceppt this and enfforce
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 113
coonforming beehaviour. Com
mpliance migh
ht be achieved
d through perrsuasion, psycchological
m
manipulation, economic, social and polittical pressure as well as bruute force.”
These definitio
ons illustrate the
t most com
mmon descripttion of fundam
mentalism as a negative
chharacteristic. This observattion is echoed
d in the follow
wing descriptiion: “Whetheer applied to
reeligious or seccular thinking
g, the ‘fundam
mentalist’ labeel carries as ppejorative connnotation. Oftten
ussed loosely an
nd without cleear definition
n, the label can
n be used to m
mark a personn, group, or
innstitution as in
n some respecct intolerant, militant
m
of oth
herwise danggerous.” (Connkle, 1996, p. 5).
The majority of
o the availablle definitions,, then, describ
be fundamenttalism in prim
marily negativve
teerms, as repreesenting extrem
me views thaat are often diffficult to channge, a sense oof superiority and
geeneral intolerance and attempts to forcee the complian
nce of others.
9.1.2
Secullar fundame
entalism
This use of thee term secularr fundamentallism seems to
o be more freqquently used iin popular culture. It
haas, however, also been useed to label thee extreme fasccist and comm
munist movem
ments of the eearly to
m
middle twentieeth century ass well as the French
F
Revolu
ution (Schlesiinger, 1995; C
Carrington, 1993;
ciited in Conklee, 1996). All of
o these moveements involv
ved totalitariaan governmennts that used ttheir
exxtreme politiccal beliefs to justify
j
the exeecution of inn
nocents and oother crimes. W
When used inn
coontext, the neegative associations with th
he fundamentalist label aree clear.
Inn a more geneeral and less extreme
e
mann
ner, secular fu
undamentalism
m has been ussed to describbe an
iddeological intrransigence off political beliiefs such as political liberaalism. In this context, secuular
fuundamentalism
m is understood as rejectin
ng religion or spiritual beliefs as a sourcce of truth in tthe
puublic domain and instead emphasizing
e
the
t use of reason and logicc (Campos, 19994; Conkle, 1996).
Prroponents of secular fundaamentalism do
o not reject reeligion entirelly, but insteadd seem to arggue that
it has no place in the public domain, as evidenced
e
by the
t followingg quote, “To tthe extent thatt
reeligion has tru
uth value, it iss a matter of private
p
truth, a form of trutth that lacks ppublic significance”
(C
Conkle, 1996,, p. 348).
C
Conkle (1996) used the term
m “comprehen
nsive secular fundamentaliism” to descrribe a secular
fuundamentalism
m that appliess to both the public
p
and priivate domainss. Comprehennsive secular
fuundamentalism
m argues thatt all questionss of truth and meaning can only be answ
wered by secuular
raationalisation and modern science, and that
t there are no truths to bbe gained from
m any other
soources. Comp
prehensive seccular fundameentalism com
mpletely rejectts the possibillity of the
suupernatural, or
o that any tru
uths or insightts can be gain
ned from religgion.
9.1.3
Scien
ntific fundam
mentalism
Sccientific fund
damentalism, on the other hand,
h
is rarely
y mentioned iin the academ
mic literature, and it
iss very difficullt to obtain deefinitions of th
his construct other than in the popular cculture literatuure.
Sccientific fund
damentalism can
c be defined
d as the belieff that “empiriically based kknowledge is the
onnly reliable way
w of knowin
ng reality” (A
Appleby & Maarty, 2008, p. 16). Similarlyy, Seitz (20100, p.7)
arrgues, “[a] fun
ndamental an
nd very imporrtant believe (sic.
(
belief) off scientific fuundamentalism
m is the
asssumption thaat Science pro
ovides objectiive knowledg
ge that is univ ersally appliccable and is abble to
soolve most, if not
n all, probleems”. When compared
c
to the
t final definnition of secular fundamenntalism
prresented in th
he previous seection, there are
a no evidentt conceptual ddifferences beetween the tw
wo
coonstructs (i.e., secular and scientific fun
ndamentalism
m).
A
Another term “scientism”
“
has been identtified in the litterature that m
may be a morre establishedd term
foor the same co
onstruct as scientific fundaamentalism. Scientism
S
has been definedd as having “ttwo
Paage 114
Humanssystems®
major attrib
butes: uncond
ditional belieff in science, a view mainlyy held and authhorised by sccientists
which they unconsciouslly force the general
g
publicc in any culturral setting to aaccept and shhare; and
uncritical conviction of valuing
v
appliccation of scieence into life--world settinggs, originatingg in the
Western traaditional value system” (M
McConnel, 20003, p.3). Anotther author haas conceptuallized
scientism as:
x
x
x
x
A single-minded
s
d adherence to
o only the em
mpirical or testable;
A strictly
s
scientiific worldview
w;
Rejjects most, if not all, metap
physical, phillosophical andd religious claaims becausee they
can
nnot be tested
d through the scientific
s
metthod; and
Vieews science as
a the absolutee and only jusstifiable accesss to the truthh about the woorld and
reaality (Seitz, 20
010).
As demonstrated by this description and
a through ccomparing theese definitions with the onees in
previous seections, the terrms “secular fundamentaliism”, “scientiific fundamenntalism” and
“scientism”” seem to be defining
d
a verry similar connstruct. In genneral, howeveer, there is relatively
little detail available abo
out them, and these construucts appear too be quite undderdeveloped in the
available litterature. The next two secttions further eexamine the sstate of the litterature by
investigatin
ng the impact of non-religious belief sysstems on believers’ health and well-beinng (e.g.,
“happier”) or cognition. Scales relevaant to scientiffic fundamenttalism are alsoo identified.
9.2
Im
mpact of no
on-religio
ous belief systems o
on health, well-bein
ng and
co
ognition
One particu
ular area of in
nterest is the im
mpact non-reeligious belieff systems (e.gg., rigid seculaar,
scientific, or
o humanistic fundamentalist world view
ws) have on hhealth and weell-being as w
well as
cognition. There
T
is somee evidence in the available literature of connections aamong religioon,
spirituality,, and health. Several
S
studiees demonstratte that religiouus devotion aand spiritualitty are
associated with
w longevity
y, psychologiical adjustment, improved recovery from
m illness, copping skills,
health-relatted quality off life, and redu
uce anxiety annd depressionn (e.g. Pargam
ment, 2001; Sm
mith,
McCulloug
gh, &Poll, 200
03; Mueller, Plevak,
P
& Rum
mmans, 20011; Sloan, Bagiiella, & Poweell, 1999;
Sloan & Baagiella, 2002; McCullough
h, Hoyt, Larsoon, Koenig, & Thoresen, 2000; Luskin, 2000;
Levine & Targ,
T
2002, Seeeman, Dubin
n, Seeman, 20003). Howeveer, there is a ggreat deal of ccriticism
of the meassures used in this
t research (cf. Hall, Meador & Koennig, 2008; Büsssing, Matthieessan, &
Ostermann,, 2005), and this
t could lim
mit the conclussions that cann be drawn froom existing reesearch on
the positivee impacts of religion on health and well-being.
A search off the availablee literature loo
oking at the iimpacts of nonn-religious orr non-spirituaal belief
systems on health outcom
mes revealed very little ressearch. . Evenn though studdies investigatting the
relationship
p between reliigion and heaalth outcomess often includee individuals who do not identify
themselves as being relig
gious, analysees do not ade quately incluude this imporrtant group whhen
considering
g the relationsship between a more neutraal, secular belief system annd health outccomes.
Ross (1990
0) argues that people in thiss group are, aat best, used aas a comparisoon group rathher than
tapping their unique persspective on why
w they identtify as non-reeligious and hhow this benefits them
regarding th
heir health an
nd well-being. Studies ofteen combine thhese individuals with participants
who claim very
v
weak beeliefs, or exclu
ude them from
m analysis alttogether. In R
Ross’ investiggation of
the effects of
o religion on
n psychologiccal distress, shhe emphasizedd the importaance of undersstanding
the perspecctives of both religious and
d non-religiouus individuals. She states,
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 115
“Peoplle who say they have no reeligion do nott say it lightlyy; they are nott indifferent. They
have made
m
a consciious choice to
o reject religio
on, and this iss quite differeent from sayinng, for
examp
ple, that one iss Protestant but
b has only a very weak beelief. Those w
who claim "noo
religio
on" or "no belief" are an im
mportant comp
parison groupp… Past literaature leads us to
expectt that those wiith no religion
n should havee high distresss levels, sincee they are maarginal
and lacck the meanin
ng and comm
mitment that co
ome from reliigious belief. On the other hand,
they may
m have mad
de commitmen
nts to other no
on-religious iinstitutions thhat serve an
emotio
onal function similar to thaat of religion. We might th en expect thaat both personns with
strong religious belief and person
ns who have rejected
r
religgion would haave low distreess
levels”” (p. 237).
Inndeed, this ressearch showed that individ
duals reporting no religiouss beliefs had tthe lowest levvels of
diistress when compared
c
to individuals
i
with
w religious beliefs
b
(Ross,, 1990). Indivviduals who reported
sttrong religiou
us beliefs show
wed similarly
y lower distresss levels to thhose reportingg weak religioous
beeliefs. Other analyses
a
expllored whetherr the type of religion endorrsed impactedd on well-beinng.
R
Results showed
d that the psy
ychological diistress of indiv
viduals who rreported no reeligion was nnot
siignificantly diifferent from that of Protesstants, whereaas individualss who identifiied themselvees as
C
Catholic or Jew
wish showed significantly higher levels of distress. H
However, evenn this study ddid not
exxamine the co
ontent or conv
viction of the beliefs of peo
ople who idenntified themselves as non-religious.
A search of thee available litterature revealed no existin
ng empirical sstudies that innvestigate the
reelationship beetween specifi
fic non-religio
ous beliefs, su
uch as atheism
m, agnosticism
m, and scientiism and
w
well-being. Insstead, studies group all of the
t different non-religious
n
belief system
ms into a one-diimensional “n
non- religiouss” variable (cff. Weber, Parrgament, Kuniik, Lomax, & Stanley, 20111),
w
which does nott delineate tho
ose who are non-religious
n
to those whoo are secular oor scientific
fuundamentalistts. This lack of
o specificity severely limiits the conclussions that cann be drawn froom
reesearch that in
ncludes a “non-religious” variable.
v
Thiss oversight haas not gone unnnoticed by oother
reesearchers. Fo
or example, Whitley
W
(2010
0) argued abou
ut the importaance of investtigating the effect of
attheism on heaalth. As he ex
xplained, “[t]h
hough not a ‘rreligion’, atheeism can be ann orienting
w
worldview thatt is often conssciously chossen by its adheerents, who ¿¿rmly believe in the ‘truth’ of
attheism… Ath
heism (just lik
ke theism) is an
a appropriatee domain of sstudy for sociaal and culturaal
pssychiatrists (aand allied soccial scientists)) interested in
n exploring soocio-environm
mental stressoors and
buuffers relating
g to mental heealth” (p.190,, emphasis ad
dded).
O
Overall, the rellationship bettween strong, committed, non-religious
n
s worldviews and health annd
w
well-being doees not seem to
o have been em
mpirically inv
vestigated in the available literature.
9.3
Scale
es pertain
ning to sec
cular and scientific
c fundame
entalism
The following sections revieew potentially
y relevant meeasures from tthe available peer-revieweed
litterature and, to the extent possible,
p
willl compare theem to the Upaal and Legaultt (2011) scienntific
fuundamentalism
m (SF) scale. Due to the laack of empiriccal research oon scientific fu
fundamentalissm and
sccientism, only
y one scale that directly meeasures the co
onstructs of innterest could bbe identified,, but a
nuumber of otheer scales that are potentiallly relevant to scientific funndamentalism
m were also
coonsidered. Fo
or a full list off items of the SF scale, seee Annex A.
9.3.1
Scien
ntism
A
As discussed in
n the previous section, scieentism seems closely relateed to the conccept of scienttific
fuundamentalism
m. Fulljames,, Gibson, and Francis (199
91) developedd a 5-item Likkert scale meaasuring
Paage 116
Humanssystems®
scientism, which
w
they deefined as “thee extent to whhich scientificc views are abbsolutely certaain”
(p.174). Th
he items from this measure are as follow
ws:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Sciience will eveentually give us
u complete ccontrol over tthe world.
Theeories in scien
nce can be prroved to be deefinitely true.
Thee laws of scieence will neveer be changedd.
Theeories in scien
nce are neverr proved with absolute certtainty. (Reverrse scored)
Nothing should be believed unless
u
it can bbe proved scieentifically.
odified the scaale by addingg an additionaal item “Sciennce will eventtually give
Stolberg (2007) later mo
us completee understandiing of the worrld”. Howeveer, the originaal 5-item meassure from Fullljames
and colleag
gues demonstrrated poor intternal consisteency with an alpha of 0.566, while the 6--item
measure used by Stolberrg (2007) dem
monstrated accceptable reliaability with ann alpha of .700.
Astley & Frrancis (2010)) also created a modified veersion of the scale to moree accurately ccapture
more recent conceptualizzations of scientism with tthe addition oof two items: ““Science can give us
absolute tru
uths”and “Sciience alone caan provide truuths about natture”. The ressultant 7-item
m scale had
a reliability
y coefficient of
o 0.77, demonstrating impproved reliabiility.
The originaal scientism measure
m
was found
f
to be siggnificantly reelated to perceeptions of Chhristians as
creationistss (Fulljames et
e al., 1991). In
I Francis andd Greer’s (20001) investigattion the roles of
scientism and creationism
m on adolescents’ attitudees towards science and religgion, this meaasure was
also significcantly negativ
vely related to
o participantss’ endorsemennt of creationnism and posittively
related with
h attitudes tow
ward science. The 7-item vversion used bby Astley andd Francis (20110)
demonstrated an identicaal pattern of relationships
r
iin an investiggation of the eeffects of scieentism and
creationism
m on attitudes toward science and religioon. Specificallly, it was signnificantly neggatively
related to crreationism an
nd positively related
r
to attiitudes toward science and rreligion. .
The scientissm scales sho
ow some relattionship to thee SF scale (U
Upal & Legaullt, 2011) as thhe SF scale
also contain
ns items assesssing the view
w that scientiffic methods aand scientific ttheories can aattain
absolute tru
uth.
9.3.2
Ev
volution and
d Creationis
sm
As mention
ned in the prev
vious section, scientism haas been investtigated in tanndem with belliefs about
creationism
m and evolutio
on. Since indiividuals who aadhere to scieentific fundam
mentalism woould
completely reject creatio
onism in all fo
orms and enddorse evolutioon, measures oof beliefs in eevolution
and creation
nism may also be relevant.
The measurres used in the previous section that werre correlated with scientism
m measure w
were a
measure off Creationism developed by
y Francis and Greer (1999aa). Astley andd Francis (2010) used a
modified veersion of the scale
s
that rem
moved all refeerences to the Bible as it is a religious teext that is
specific to Christianity.
C
These
T
two veersions of the Creationism scale are founnd in Annex B
B.
Another pro
omising meassure that was identified in the literature was one deveeloped by Polling and
Evans (200
04). This meassure contains a wider specttrum of beliefs about creattionism and eevolution
and includees seven consttructs: common descent, crreationism, aadaptation, intterconnectednness,
religiosity, paranormal beliefs,
b
and ex
xtinction. Forr a descriptionns, sample iteems (completee list of
items was not
n published)), and reliabillity of these suubscales see Table 14.
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 117
Table 14:: Subscale Description
D
ns, Sample Items,
I
and Reliability ffor Poling a
and
Eva
an’s (2004) Measure
M
Suubscale
Description
Samplle items
R
Reliability
Coommon Descent
(11 items)
Focused on thhe Darwinian theorry of
common deceent
“All sppecies have develooped from a comm
mon ancestor”
and “D
Dogs, coyotes andd wolves all have a common
ancestor.”
Į = .87
Crreationism
Measured the degree of belief that all
w created by Good and
living things were
that the univerrse has not changed
since creation
“All living creatures weree created by God”” and “Our
univerrse was created byy God.”
Į = .75
“Species undergo changges as a result of pressure
from thhe environment” aand “If a grass covvered island
becom
mes desert-like, soome animals might develop the
ability to store water (likke camels) and theey would pass
this abbility on to their offfspring”
Į = .77
(8 items)
Assessed the opinions on the iddea that
species changge over time in ressponse
to environmenntal change
Intterconnectednesss
(3 items)
Focused on thhe interconnectivityy of
species
“If all members
m
of one sspecies migrated too a different
area, members
m
of otherr species left behinnd would be
affecteed” and “All speciees are completely separate
from one
o another” (reveerse coded).
Į = .66
Reeligiosity
Measured enddorsement of a corre set of
religious belieffs that transcend religious
r
boundaries
“Religiion is one way thaat we can explain tthings that
Į = .73
Assessed beliefs in paranormal
phenomenon
“Certaain individuals can read the thoughtss of others”
and “S
Some people can ppredict the future””
Į = .77
Measured genneral knowledge about
extinction
“Certaain species have bbecome extinct eveen though
humanns have never ide ntified them” and “If an
animal’s environment iss suddenly changeed, the entire
speciees might disappeaar”
Į = .68
(7 items)
Addaption
(5 items)
Paaranormal Beliefs
(8 items)
Exxtinction
(8 items)
otherw
wise have no explaanation” and “Religious writings
provide guidelines for coorrect moral behavior”
d
promising psychometric properties, witth some evideence of conveergent
The measure demonstrated
annd divergent validity
v
and th
he majority reeliabilities off the subscaless ranging from
m .73 - .87.
U
Unfortunately, no further ev
vidence of vallidation and reliability
r
exisst as the meassure appears tto have
onnly been used
d in the one sttudy
9.3.3
Relatiing Science
e and Religiion
Inn Stolberg’s (2
2007) investigation of the attitudes of primary
p
teacheers toward religion and sciience,
a new five-item
m measure ex
xplored differeent ways of reelating sciencce and religionn. These quesstions
arre not intendeed to be used as a scale; each item is sup
pposed to reprresent a diffeerent way of
reepresenting th
he relationship
p between relligion and scieence. These iitems are listeed below.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Both science
s
and reeligion are im
mportant for hu
uman well-beeing
Conflict between sccience and relligion is ineviitable
Sciencce and religion
n should be kept
k completely separate
Deep down
d
science and religion are one and the
t same
Interacction between
n science and religion can be
b of benefit tto both
Paage 118
Humanssystems®
Though nott directly a measure of scieentific or secuular fundamenntalism, this m
measure is pootentially
relevant as individuals who
w endorse scientific
s
funddamentalism rreject religionn as a possible source
of truth or meaning.
m
As a result, thosee who score hhigh on the SF
F scale (Upal & Legault, 22011),
would stron
ngly disagree with items th
hat indicate thhat religion haas some impoortance (itemss 1, 4, and
5). The SF scale includes items aboutt the conflict bbetween sciennce and religiion and the roole of
religion succh as “Wheneever science and
a religion coonflict, sciencce is right”, ““Science will one day
explain all aspects of reaality including
g religion”, annd “Religion is needed to explain thosee aspects
of the univeerse that scien
nce cannot an
nd will never bbe able to expplain” (reversse scored). Ass such,
individuals with high sco
ores on the SF
F scale may ppotentially enndorse one or both of itemss 2 and 3
of the relatiing science an
nd religion measure. Howeever, these sppeculations aree subject to empirical
validation.
9.3.4
eliefs
Strrength of Be
As discusseed in the prev
vious section, the potential health benefiits of religiouus beliefs mayy largely
depend on the
t strength of
o these belieffs. Consequenntly, measurinng the strengtth of non-religgious
beliefs is allso important in order to in
nvestigate the relationship between non--religious bellief
systems and
d health outco
omes. By defi
finition, scienttific fundameentalists are sttrongly comm
mitted to
their beliefss. As a result,, individuals who
w score higgh on the SF sscale may alsso score high on scales
measuring strength
s
of beeliefs.
Few studiess directly inveestigate the generic strengtth of beliefs. Existing reseearch demonsttrates that
some studiees measure strrength of beliiefs using dom
main-specificc scales (e.g. rreligious
fundamentaalism; Altemeeyer & Hunsb
berger, 1990 aas cited in Maaxwell-Smithh & Esses, 20112) or a
one-item measure
m
that diirectly asks th
he participantt to rate the thheir commitm
ment to a speciific belief
(i.e., Ross, 1990). Two longer potentiially relevant scales measuuring the strenngth of beliefs
fs include
the Commitment to Beliefs scale (CT
TB; Maxwell- Smith & Essees, 2012) andd the World H
Health
Organizatio
on Quality of Life – Spiritu
ual, Religiouss, and Personaal Beliefs moodule (WHOQ
QOL –
SRPB; WH
HOQOL SRPB
B Group, 2002). The comm
mitment to beeliefs scale meeasures “the ddegree to
which an in
ndividual generally feels it is important to follow his or her value--expressive beeliefs”
(Maxwell-S
Smith & Essees, p.195). Thee scale is com
mprised of twoo subscales, bbelief centraliity and
belief transcendence. Th
he measure haas overall dem
monstrated goood reliabilityy and validity
(Maxwell-S
Smith & Essees) and directlly measures sttrength of belliefs. For a fuull list of item
ms included
in the CTB scale see Annex C. The WHOQOL
W
–S
SRPB scale m
measures strenngth of beliefs
fs less
directly. Ho
owever, it hass extensive crross-cultural vvalidity, and iit measures peersonal and sppiritual
beliefs in general (WHO
OQOL SRPB Group, 2006)). In addition,, the WHOQO
OL-SRPB waas
developed to
t assess the direct
d
relevan
nce of spirituaal, religious annd personal bbeliefs to heallth-related
quality of liife and outcom
mes (WHOQOL SRPB Grroup, 2002). F
For a full list of items incluuded in
the WHOQ
QOL scale see Annex C.
9.3.5
Atttitude toward Science
Scientific fundamentalis
fu
sm is adopted as a result off strong or firm
m attitudes annd beliefs onee has
regarding th
he power of science
s
and itss capacity to define our woorld and placee in it. Individduals that
endorse a scientific fund
damentalist beelief system vview science aas important aand infallible. Attitudes
toward scieence have beeen examined, specifically inn terms of stuudents’ attituddes toward sccience, and
identified in
n the literaturre (c.f., Blalocck et al., 20088).
For examplle, Menis (198
89) developed
d a 23-item m
measure of atttitudes towardd science withh
subscales assessing the importance
i
off science, attittude toward sscience as a career, and sciience in
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 119
thhe school currriculum. The attitude toward science as a career and science in thee school curriiculum
sm. Howeverr, the importaance of sciencce
arre not likely to be relevant to scientific fundamentali
f
suubscale may be
b related to the
t SF scale (Upal & Legaault, 2011) as individuals w
who are high iin
sccientific fundaamentalism are
a likely to raate science as being very im
mportant. Thiis 10-item subbscale
m
measuring the importance of
o science has also been useed on its ownn in studies annd is reportedd to
haave demonstrrated reliabilitty and validity
y (Francis & Greer, 1999bb; Stolberg & Fulljames, 20003;
Sttolberg, 2007
7). For a full list
l of items, see
s Annex D..
M
Measures havee also been deeveloped to deetermine how
w attitudes tow
ward science cchange over ttime
suuch as the Change in Attitu
ude about the Relevance off Science queestionnaire (C
CARS; Siegel &
R
Ranney, 2003)). This scale contained
c
item
ms such as “Sccience helps m
me think thinngs through” aand
“S
Science can help
h me to maake better cho
oices about vaarious things iin my life (e.gg., food to eatt, car to
buuy)” (Siegel & Ranney, p. 769). As such, it is intend
ded to addresss how integrall science is too one’s
liffe in general. Individuals with
w high scorres on the SF scale (Upal & Legault, 20011) would bee likely
too score high on
o this measurre as well. Ho
owever, the uttility of the C
CARS instrum
ment may be liimited
byy its specificity for an educcational settin
ng.
9.3.6
Free Will
W and Determinism
Siimilar to evollution, individ
duals who adh
here to scienttific fundamenntalism are likkely to have sstrong
oppinions aboutt free will and
d determinism
m. Because off the emphasiss that scientiffic fundamenttalism
pllaces on explaanations baseed on science or rationalizaation, these inndividuals woould be likely to
enndorse free will,
w whereas determinism
d
or
o belief in fatte would be vviewed as “unnscientific” annd
faatalistic (e.g., predestinatio
on).
Paaulhus and Cary (2011) deeveloped a meeasure of freee will and deteerminism callled the FAD-pplus.
The FAD-plus contains 27 items,
i
uses a five-point Lik
kert scale, andd is reported to have prom
mising
pssychometrics. The scale is composed off four subscalles: Free Willl, Scientific D
Determinism,
Faatalistic Determinism, and
d Unpredictab
bility. Scientiffic determinissm measures bbelief in bioloogical
annd environmeental determin
nants of humaan behaviourss whereas Fattalistic Determ
minism measuures
beelief in fate. For
F a full list of items on th
he FAD-plus scale see Annnex E.
Sccores on the SF
S scale woulld likely be positively relatted to scores on the free w
will subscale aand
poossibly the sccientific determ
minism scale.
Paage 120
Humanssystems®
9.4
Su
ummary of Findings
s
In sum, the concept of seecular or scientific fundam
mentalism has received verry little attentiion in the
existing sciientific literatu
ure. Literaturre that does coover non-religgious fundam
mentalism has been
largely phillosophical or theoretical in
n nature. Therre is some lim
mited experim
mental researchh that
investigatess constructs th
hat are related
d to secular o r scientific fuundamentalism
m. This researrch has for
the most paart been limiteed to the educcational field and focuses oon the attitudees of teacherss and
students tow
ward science and religion.
Due to the limited
l
researrch on scientiific fundamenntalism and reelated construucts, there is little
research inv
vestigating th
he characteristtics of individduals who adhhere to non-reeligious belieefs. Strong
religious beeliefs have beeen linked to positive
p
healtth outcomes, bbut no researcch has investiigated if
commitmen
nt to non-relig
gious belief sy
ystems impaccts positively or negativelyy on health. T
Though
some researrch on religio
on and health has included individuals w
who do not iddentify with anny religion
as a comparrison group, the
t personal beliefs
b
of thesse individualss (e.g., such aas if they idenntify with
atheism or scientific fun
ndamentalism,, or the strenggths of their bbeliefs) has noot been investtigated.
Similarly, although
a
reseaarch has identtified social aand cognitive characteristiccs that are asssociated
with religio
ous fundamen
ntalism, no ressearch that innvestigates thee social or coggnitive characcteristics
of individuaals who espou
use non-religiious belief syystems was nooted during ouur searches.
As a result of the limited
d body of literrature on nonn-religious bellief systems, tthere are few existing
measures th
hat measure scientific fund
damentalism. Upal and Leggault’s (2011) SF scale adddresses an
important gap
g in existing
g research. Th
he conceptuall framework oof the scale iss promising as items
seem to tap
p identified ch
haracteristics of scientific ffundamentalissm. Howeverr, some of the current
items includ
de more than one concept in the same ittem, and this could make iit confusing ffor
participantss if they have different opin
nions about thhe different cconcepts in thhe item. For exxample
with the item “We have to be a little skeptical
s
of soome of the sccientific claim
ms because sciientists
also have th
heir own agen
ndas” an indiv
vidual may aggree with the first part of thhe statement (“We
have to be a little skepticcal of some sccientific claim
ms”) but disaggree with the reason (“…bbecause
scientists allso have theirr own agendass”). Future w ork may conssider the indivvidual items oon the SF
scale to dettermine if exaamples such as
a the one provvided above w
will impact pparticipants’
understandiing of these (ii.e., what partt of the item iis guiding theeir response). Future revisiions will
likely strengthen the valiidity and reliaability of the scale. Follow
wing validatioon, the SF scalle will
contribute to
t future reseaarch addressin
ng the prominnence of non--religious belief systems annd the
impact on health
h
and weell-being and cognition.
c
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 121
TH
HIS PAGE IN
NTENTIONALLY LEFT B
BLANK.
Paage 122
Humanssystems®
REFE
ERENC
CES
ALTEMEY
YER, Ǻ, & HU
UNSBERGER
R, Ǻ. 1992. A
Authoritarianism, religious fundamentallism,
quest, and prejudice.
p
Thee Internationa
al Journal forr the Psycholo
logy of Religioon, 2, 113-133.
APPLEBY, R.S. & MAR
RTY, M.E. 20
002. Fundam
mentalism. Forreign Policy, 128, 16-18+220-22.
J & FRANC
CIS, L.J. 2010
0. Promoting ppositive attituudes towards science and rreligion
ASTLEY, J.,
among sixth
h-form pupilss: Dealing witth scientism aand creationissm. British Joournal of Reliigious
Education, 32(3), 189-20
00.
ON, K., DORR
R, N., & HUM
ME, D. L. 20001. Status diffferences
BETTENCOURT, B. A.., CHARLTO
p bias: A meta-analytic exaamination of the effects off status stabiliity, status legitimacy,
and ingroup
and group permeability.
p
Psychologica
al Bulletin, 1227(4), 520-5442.
BLAIR, I. V.,
V & JOST, J.
J T. 2003. Ex
xit, loyalty, annd collective action amongg workers in a
simulated business
b
envirronment: Interactive effectts of group iddentification aand boundary
permeabilitty. Social Justice Research
h, 16(2), 95-1 08.
BLALOCK
K, C., LICHTE
ENSTEIN, M.,
M OWEN, S.., PRUSKI, L
L., MARSHAL
LL, C., &
TOEPPERW
WEIN, M. In pursuit of vaalidity: A com
mprehensive review of scieence attitude
instrumentss 1935-2005. Internationall Journal of SScience Educaation, 30(7), 9961-977.
BLANZ, M.,
M MUMMEN
NDEY, A., MIELKE,
M
R., & KLINK, A
A. 1998. Respponding to neggative
social identtity: A taxono
omy of identitty managemeent strategies. European Joournal of Sociial
Psychologyy, 28, 697-729
9.
BOEN, F., & VANBESE
ELAERE, N. 2002. The reelative impactt of socio-struuctural characcteristics
on behaviorral reactions against
a
memb
bership in a loow status grouup. Group Prrocesses & Intergroup
Relations, 5(4),
5
299-318
8.
BOEN, F., VANBESEL
LAERE, N., & COOL, M. 22006. Group status as a deeterminant of
organizational identificaation after a taakeover: A soocial identity pperspective. G
Group Processses &
Intergroup Relations, 9(4), 547-560.
ogy of prejudiice: Ingroup llove or outgrooup hate? Jouurnal of
BREWER, M. B. 1999. The psycholo
9-444.
Social Issuees, 55(3), 429
BROWN, R.
R 1978. Divided we fall: An
A analysis o f relations beetween sectionns of a factoryy
workforce. In H. Tajfel (Ed.),
(
Differeentiation betw
ween social grroups (pp. 3955-429). San D
Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
P
BROWN, R.
R J. 1984. Th
he effects of in
ntergroup sim
milarity and cooperative veersus competiitive
orientation on intergroup
p discriminatiion. British Joournal of Soccial Psychologgy, 23. 21-33.
R & WADE, G. 1987. Su
uperordinate ggoals and inteergroup behavviour: The efffect of role
BROWN, R.,
ambiguity and
a status on intergroup atttitudes and taask performannce. Europeann Journal of SSocial
Psychologyy: 17, 131-142
2.
BÜSSING, A., OSTERM
MANN, T., & MATTHIES
SSEN, P.F. (22005). Role oof Religion annd
spirituality in medical paatients: con¿rrmatory resultts with the SppREUK questtionnaire. Heaalth and
Quality of Life
L Outcomes, 3(10):1–10
0.
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 123
C
CAMPOS, P.F
F. 1994. Secullar fundamentalism. Colum
mbia Law Revview, 94(6), 1814-1827.
C
CARICATI, L. AND MON
NACELLI, N. 2010. Social hierarchies aand intergroupp discriminatiion:
The case of thee intermediatee status group
p. British Jourrnal of Sociall Psychology,, 49(3), 637–6646.
C
CONKLE, D.O
O. 1996. Secu
ular fundamentalism, relig
gious fundam
mentalism, annd the searchh for
trruth in contemporary Am
merica. Journa
al of Law and
d Religion, 122(2), 337-370..
C
COSTARELLII, S. 2012. Co
oping with inttergroup threaat via biased attributions too low group eeffort:
The moderatin
ng roles of ing
group identificcation, legitim
macy, and insstability of inttergroup statuus.
Soocial Psychollogy, 43(1), 47-59.
D
DOOSJE, B., SPEARS,
S
R., & ELLEMER
RS, N. 2002. Social identiity as both cauuse and effectt: The
deevelopment of
o group identtification in reesponse to antticipated and actual changges in the interrgroup
sttatus hierarchy. British Jou
urnal of Socia
al Psychologyy, 41(1), 57-766.
D
DUMONT, K., & VAN LIL
LL, B. 2009. Dominant
D
and
d non-dominaant groups ressponses to social
chhange: The ecconomic transsformation prrocess in Soutth Africa. Souuth African Joournal of
Ps
Psychology, 39
9(4), 432-447
7.
ELLEMERS, N.,
N SPEARS, R., & DOOS
SJE, B. 1997. Sticking togeether or fallinng apart: In-grroup
iddentification as
a a psycholog
gical determinant of group
p commitmennt versus indivvidual mobilitty.
Joournal of Perrsonality and Social
S
Psycho
ology, 72(3), 617-626.
ELLEMERS, N.,
N VAN RIJS
SWIJK, W., ROEFS,
R
M., & SIMONS, C. 1997. Biass in intergrouup
peerceptions: Balancing grou
up identity wiith social reality. Personallity and Sociaal Psychology
Bulletin, 23, 18
86–198.
ELLEMERS, N.,
N WILKE, H.,
H & VAN KNIPPENBER
K
RG, A. 1993. Effects of thhe legitimacy of low
grroup or indiviidual status on
n individual and
a collectivee status-enhanncement strateegies. Journaal of
P
Personality an
nd Social Psycchology, 64(5
5), 766-778.
FIISHER, R. J. 2000. Intergrroup conflict. In M. Deutscch, P. T. Coleeman, & E. C
C. Marcus (Edds.),
nd
Th
The handbook of conflict reesolution: Theeory and pracctice. (2 ed., pp. 176-196)). San Francissco:
Joossey-Bass.
FR
RANCIS, L.JJ., & GREER
R, J.E. 1999a. Attitudes tow
wards creationnism and evollutionary theoory: the
deebate among secondary pu
upils attending
g Catholic and
d Protestant sschools in Noorthern Irelandd.
P
Public Understanding of Sccience, 8, 93-1
103.
FR
R, J.E. 1999b. Attitude towaard science am
mong secondary school puupils in
N
Northern Irelan
nd: relationsh
hip with sex, age,
a and relig
gion. Researchh in Science aand Technoloogical
E
Education, 17((1).
FR
R, J.E. 2001. Shaping
S
adoleescents’ attituddes towards sscience and reeligion
inn Northern Ireeland: the rolee of scientism
m, creationism
m and denominnational schools. Researchh in
Sccience & Tech
hnological Ed
ducation, 19(1), 39-53.
FU
ULLJAMES,, P., GIBSON
N, H.M., & FR
RANCIS, L.J.. 1991. Creatiionism, scienttism, Christiaanity
annd science: A study in adolescent attitud
des. British Educational
E
R
Research Jourrnal, 17(2), 1771-190.
FU
UNDAMENT
TALISM. (n.d
d.). In Merria
am-Webster Dictionary
D
online. Retrieveed from
htttp://www.meerriam-websteer.com/diction
nary/fundameentalism
Paage 124
Humanssystems®
GONZALE
EZ, R., & BRO
OWN, R. 200
06. Dual idenntities in interggroup contactt: Group statuus and size
moderate th
he generalizattion of positiv
ve attitude ch ange. Journaal of Experimeental Social
Psychologyy, 42, 753–767
7.
HALL, D.E
E., MEADOR
R, K.G., KOEN
NIG, H.G. 20008. Measurinng religiousneess in health rresearch:
Review and
d critique. Jou
urnal of Relig
gion and Heallth. 47(2), 1344–163.
HASLAM, S. A. 2001. Psychology
P
in
n organizationns: The sociaal identity appproach. Londoon,
England: Saage.
HASLAM, S. A., ELLEMERS, N., REICHER,
R
S. D, REYNOL
LDS, K. J., & SCHMITT, M
M. T.
2010. The social
s
identity
y perspective tomorrow: O
Opportunities and avenues ffor advance. IIn T.
Postmes, & N. R. Bransccombe (Eds.), Rediscoveriing social ideentity: Key reaadings in sociial
psychologyy (pp. 357-380
0). New York
k, NY: Psychoology Press.
HEWSTON
NE, M., RUBIN, M., & WILLIS, H. 20002. Intergroup
up bias. Annuaal Review of
Psychologyy, 53, 575-604
4.
HILTON, J.
J L. & VON HIPPEL, W. 1996. Stereottypes. Annuaal Review of P
Psychology, 47, 237272.
Y, M. J. & HO
OGG, M. A. 2002.
2
The effeects of status on subgroup relations. Briitish
HORNSEY
Journal of Social
S
Psycho
ology, 41(2), 203-218.
JACKSON
N, J. W. 2002. The Relation
nship Betweenn Group Idenntity and Interrgroup Prejuddice Is
Moderated by Sociostrucctural Variation. Journal oof Applied Soccial Psycholoogy, 32, 908–9933.
NSCOMBE, N. R., & MC
CKIMMIE, B. M. 2005. Suuppressing
JETTEN, J., SCHMITT,, M. T., BRAN
valuation on group identiffication: The rrole of intergrroup differenttiation and
the negativee effect of dev
intragroup respect.
r
Journ
nal of Experim
mental Sociall Psychology,, 41(2), 208-2215.
JOHNSON
N, D., TERRY
Y, D.J., & LOU
UIS, W.R. 20005. Perceptioons of the inteergroup structture and
anti-Asian prejudice
p
amo
ong White Au
ustralians. Grroup Processees & Intergrooup Relations,, 8(1), 5371.
MMENDEY, A.
A 2002. Sequuential or paraallel processees? A longituddinal field
KESSLER,, T., & MUM
study conceerning determ
minants of iden
ntity-manageement strategiies. Journal of Personalityy and
Social Psycchology, 82(1), 75-88.
KUNDA, Z.
Z (1999). Soccial cognition: Making sennse of people. Cambridge, M
MA: MIT Preess.
LEONG, C.-H.
C
2008. A multilevel research framew
work for the analyses of atttitudes towarrd
immigrantss. Internationa
al Journal off Interculturall Relations, 322, 115-129.
LEVINE, E.G.
E & TARG
G, E. 2002. Sp
piritual correllates of functiional well-beiing in womenn with
breast cancer. Integrativve Cancer Theerapies, 1(2), 166-174.
F
2000. A review of thee effect of reliigious and sppiritual factorss on mortalityy and
LUSKIN, F.M.
morbidity with
w a focus on
o cardiovascu
ular and pulm
monary diseasse. Journal off Cardiopulmoonary
Rehabilitation, 20(1), 8--15.
MAJOR, B.,
B GRAMZOW
W, R. H., MC
CCOY, S. K.,, LEVIN, S., SCHMADER
R, T., & SIDA
ANIUS, J.
2002. Perceeiving person
nal discrimination: The rolee of group staatus and legitiimizing ideoloogy.
Journal of Personality
P
and
a Social Psyychology, 82((3), 269-282.
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 125
M
MAXWELL-S
SMITH, M.A.., & ESSES, V.M.
V
2012. Assessing
A
indiividual differeences in the ddegree
too which peoplle are committted to follow
wing their belieefs. Journal oof Research inn Personalityy,
466(2), 195-209
9.
M
MCCONNEL F. 2003. Com
mpliance, cultture, and the health
h
of Indiggenous peoplle. Rural and
Remote Health
h, 3(190). Avaailable: http:///www.rrh.org
g.au
M
MCCULLOUG
GH, M. E., HOYT, T. H., LARSON,
L
D. B., KOENIG
G, H. G., & T
THORESEN, C.
(22000). Religio
ous involvement and mortaality: A meta--analytic review. Health P
Psychology, 199, 211–
2222.
M
MCGREGOR,, I., HAJI, R.,, KANG, S-J. 2008. Can in
ngroup affirm
mation relieve outgroup
deerogation? Jo
ournal of Expeerimental Soccial Psycholog
gy, 44, 1395--1401
M
MENIS, J. 198
89. Attitudes towards
t
schoo
ol, chemistry students andd science amonng upper secoondary
chhemistry stud
dents and scien
nce among up
pper secondarry chemistry students in thhe United Stattes.
Research in Sccience & Tech
hnological Ed
ducation, 7, 183–190.
M
MUELLER, P., PLEVAK, D.,
D & RUMM
MANS, T. (20
001). Religiouus involvemennt, spiritualityy, and
m
medicine: Implications for clinical
c
practiice. Mayo Cliinic Proceedinngs, 76, 12255-1235.
M
MUMMENDE
EY, A., KESS
SLER, T., KL
LINK, A., & MIELKE,
M
R. 11999. Strateggies to cope w
with
neegative sociall identity: Preedictions by social identity theory and reelative deprivvation theory..
Joournal of Perrsonality and Social
S
Psycho
ology, 76(2), 229-245.
M
MUMMENDE
EY, A., KLIN
NK, A., MIEL
LKE, R., WEN
NZEL, M., & BLANZ, M. 1999. Socio-sttructural charaacteristics of intergroup reelations and id
dentity managgement strateggies: results ffrom a
field study in East
E Germany
y. European Journal
J
of Soccial Psycholoogy, 29(2-3), 2259–285.
N
NADLER, A. & HALABI, S. 2006. Interrgroup helpin
ng as status reelations: Effeccts of status
sttability, identiification, and type of help on receptivity
y to high statuus groups hellp. Journal off
P
Personality an
nd Social Psycchology, 91(1), 97-110.
N
NADLER, A., HARPAZ-G
GORODEISKY
Y, G., & BEN
N-DAVID, Y
Y. 2009. Defennsive helping:
Threat to group
p identity, ing
group identifiication, statuss stability, andd common grooup identity aas
deeterminants of
o intergroup help-giving.
h
Journal
J
of Peersonality andd Social Psychhology, 97(5)), 8238334.
N
NIENS, U., & CAIRNS, E. 2002. Identitty managemen
nt strategies iin Northern Irreland. The Jo
Journal
off Social Psych
hology, 142(3
3), 371-380.
O
OUWERKERK
K, J. W., DE GILDER, D., & DE VRIE
ES, N. K. 200 0. When the ggoing gets touugh,
thhe tough get going:
g
Social identification
n and individu
ual effort in inntergroup com
mpetition.
P
Personality an
nd Social Psycchology Bulleetin, 26(12), 1550-1559.
1
O
OUWERKERK
K, J. W., & ELLEMERS,
E
N.
N 2002. The benefits of bbeing disadvanntaged:
Peerformance-related circum
mstances and consequences
c
s of intergroupp comparisonns. European
Joournal of Soccial Psycholog
gy, 32(1), 73-91.
PA
AGLIARO, S.,
S ALPARON
NE, F. R., PA
ACILLI, M. G.,
G & MUCCH
HI-FAINA, A
A. 2012. Manaaging a
soocial identity threat: Ambiv
valence toward the ingroup
p as psycholoogical disengaagement. Social
Ps
Psychology, 43
3(1), 41-46.
PA
ARGAMENT
T, K. I. (2001). Religious struggle
s
as a predictor
p
of m
mortality. Arcchives of Interrnal
M
Medicine, 161,, 1881–1885.
Paage 126
Humanssystems®
PAULHUS
S, D.L., & CA
AREY, J.M. 2011. The FAD
D-Plus: Meassuring lay belliefs regardingg free will
and related constructs. Journal
J
of perrsonality asses
essment, 93(1)), 96-104.
CI, M. 2005. Science
S
and Fundamentalis
F
sm. EMBO reeports, 6(12), 1106 – 1109.
PIGLIUCC
POLING, D.A.,
D
& EVAN
NS, E.M. 200
04. Religious belief, scienttific expertisee, and folk ecoology.
Journal of Cognition
C
and
d Culture, 4(3
3), 485-524.
POSTMES, T. & BRAN
NSCOMBE, N.
N 2010. Sourrces of social identity. In T
T. Postmes, & N.
Branscomb
be, (Eds.) Red
discovering So
ocial Identity:: Core Sourcees. Psychologgy Press.
ROBERTS, L. M., SETT
TLES, I. H., & JELLISON
N, W. A. 20088. Predicting tthe strategic iidentity
managemen
nt of gender and
a race. Iden
ntity: An Interrnational Journal of Theorry and Researrch, 8,
269-306.
E. Religion and Psychological Distress. 1990. Journaal for the Scientific Study of Religion,
ROSS, C.E
29(2), 236-245.
RS, D. 2009. Turning social identity thrreat into challlenge: Status stability and
SCHEEPER
cardiovascu
ular reactivity
y during inter--group compeetition. Journnal of Experim
mental Social
Psychologyy, 45(1), 228-2
233.
SCHEEPER
RS, D., & EL
LLEMERS, N.
N 2005. Whenn the pressuree is up: The asssessment of social
identity threeat in low and
d high status groups. Journnal of Experim
mental Sociall Psychology, 41(2),
192-200.
RS, D., ELLE
EMERS, N., & SINTEMA
AARTENSDIJJK, N. 2009. Suffering from
m the
SCHEEPER
possibility of
o status loss:: Physiologicaal responses tto social idenntity threat in hhigh status grroups.
European Journal
J
of Soccial Psycholo
ogy, 39(6), 10075-1092
SCHEEPER
RS, D., SPEA
ARS, R., DOO
OSJE, B., & M
MANSTEAD
D, A. S. R. 20006. Diversity in ingroup bias: Structural faactors, situatio
onal features, and social fuunctions. Jourrnal of Personnality and
Social Psycchology, 90, 944-960.
9
SCHMADE
ER, T., MAJO
OR, B., ECCL
LESTON, C. P., & MCCO
OY, S. K. 2001. Devaluing domains
in responsee to threatenin
ng intergroup comparisons: Perceived leegitimacy andd the status vaalue
asymmetry. Journal of Personality
P
an
nd Social Psyychology, 80(55), 782-796.
S, J. 2002. Steereotypic ingrroup bias as sself-defense aagainst relativve
SCHMITT,, M. & MAES
deprivation
n: evidence fro
om a longitud
dinal study off the German unification prrocess. Europpean
Journal of Social
S
Psycho
ology, 32, 309
9-326.
SEEMANN
N, T., DUBIN
N, L.F., & SEE
EMANN, M. 2003. Religiosity/Spirituaality and Heallth. A
critical reviiew of the eviidence for bio
ological pathw
ways. Americaan Psychologgist, 58(1), 533-63.
SEITZ, A. 2010.
2
Is scien
nce the new fundamentalis
fu
sm? Public leccture presentted at the exisstentialist
society. Easst Melbourne, Australia.
SIEGEL, M.A.,
M
& RANNEY, M.A. 2003.
2
Developping the channges in attitudde about the reelevance
of science (CARS)
(
questtionnaire and assessing tw
wo high school science classses. Journal oof
Research in
n Science Tea
aching, 40(8),, 757-775.
SLOAN, R.
R P., & BAGIIELLA, E. (20
002). Claims about religioous involvemeent and healthh
outcomes. Annals
A
of Beh
havioral Med
dicine, 24, 14––21.
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 127
SL
LOAN, R. P., BAGIELLA
A, E., & POW
WELL, T. (199
99). Religion,, spirituality, and medicinee.
Laancet, 353, 66
64–667.
SM
MITH, T.B., MCCULLOU
UGH, M. E., & POLL, J. (2003). Religiiousness and depression
Evidence for a main effect and
a the moderating influen
nce of stressfuul life events.. Psychologiccal
Bulletin, 129(4
4), 614 – 636
6.
ST
TOLBERG, T.
T 2007. The Religio-scien
ntific Framew
works of pre-s ervice primarry teachers: A
An
annalysis of their influence on
o their teachiing of sciencee. International Journal off Science Educcation,
299(7), 909-930
0.
ST
TOLBERG, T.
T L., & FUL
LLJAMES, P. 2003. An anaalysis of the cconceptual fraameworks utiilised
byy undergraduate theology students when
n studying science & religgion. Discoursse, 2(2), 167––199.
TAJFEL, H. 19
978. Social caategorization,, social identiity and social comparison. Reprinted in T.
Poostmes, & N. R. Branscom
mbe (Eds.). (2010). Redisco
overing sociaal identity: Keey readings inn social
pssychology (pp
p. 119-128). New
N York, NY
Y: Psycholog
gy Press.
TAJFEL, H. & TURNER, J.
J C. 1986. Th
he social identtity theory off intergroup b ehaviour. In S
S.
W
Worchel, & W.
W G. Austin (E
Eds.), Psycho
ology of interg
group relationns (pp. 7–24)). Chicago, IL
L:
N
Nelson-Hall.
TURNER, J. C.,
C & HASLA
AM, S. A. 200
01. Social iden
ntity, organizzations, and leeadership. In M
M. E.
Turner (Ed.). Groups
G
at worrk: Theory an
nd research (p
pp. 25-65). M
Mahwah, NJ, U
US: Lawrencee
Erlbaum Assocciates Publish
hers.
TURNER, J. C.,
C HOGG, M.
M A., OAKES
S, P. J., REICH
HER, S. D., & WETHERE
ELL, M. S. 19987.
Rediscovering the social gro
oup: A self-ca
ategorization theory. Oxfoord, England: Blackwell.
TURNER, J. C.,
C OAKES, P.
P J., HASLAM
M, S. A. & MCGARTY,
M
C
C. A. 1994. Self and collecctive:
C
Cognition and social contex
xt. Personalityy and Social Psychology
P
B
Bulletin, 20, 4454-463.
U
UPAL, A., & LEGAULT,
L
L.
L 2011. Scien
ntific fundameentalism scalee.
V
Vail, K. E., III, Rothschild, Z. K., Weise, D., Solomon
n, S., Pyszczyynski, T., & G
Greenberg, J.
(22010). Terrorr managemen
nt theory and religiosity. Personality
P
annd Social Psycchology Revieew, 14,
844-94.
V
VAN VUGT, M.,
M & HART
T, C. M. 2004.. Social identiity as social gglue: The origgins of group
looyalty. Journa
al of Personality and Socia
al Psychologyy, 86(4), 585--598.
V
VAN ZOMER
REN, M., POS
STMES, T., & SPEARS, R.
R 2008. Towaard an integraative social iddentity
m
model of collective action: A quantitative research syn
nthesis of threee socio-psycchological
peerspectives. Psychological
P
l Bulletin, 134
4, 504–535.
V
VAN ZOMER
REN, M., SPE
EARS, R., & LEACH,
L
C. W.
W (2008). Exxploring psychhological
m
mechanisms off collective acction: Does reelevance of grroup identity influence how
w people coppe with
coollective disad
dvantage? Brritish Journal of Social Psyychology, 47(22), 353-372.
V
VERKUYTEN
N, M. 2005. Ethnic
E
group identification and group evvaluation amoong minority aand
m
majority group
ps: Testing thee multiculturaalism hypotheesis. Journal of Personality
ty and Social
Ps
Psychology, 88
8(1), 121-138
8.
V
VERKUYTEN
N, M., & REIJJERSE, A. 20
008. Intergrou
up structure an
and identity m
management among
etthnic minority
y and majority
y groups: Thee interactive effects
e
of percceived stabiliity, legitimacyy, and
peermeability. European
E
Jou
urnal of Socia
al Psychologyy, 38(1), 106-1127
Paage 128
Humanssystems®
VEZZALI, L., ANDRIG
GHETTO, L., TRIFILETTII, E., & VISIN
NTIN, E. P. 22012. Perceivving status
(in)stability
y in a low stattus group: The effects of iddentification oon explicit annd implicit inttergroup
attitudes. So
ocial Psychollogy, 43(1), 33-40.
VON HIPP
PEL, C. D. 2006. When peo
ople would raather switch thhan fight: Ouut-group favorritism
among temp
porary emplo
oyees. Group Processes & Intergroup R
Relations, 9(4), 533-546.
WEBER, U.,
U MUMMEN
NDEY, A., & WALDZUS
S, S. 2002. Perrceived legitimacy of interrgroup
status differrences: Its preediction by reelative ingrouup protypicality. Europeann Journal of SSocial
Psychologyy, 32(4), 449-4
470.
WEBER, S.R.,
S
PARGAM
MENT, K.I., KUNIK, M.E
E., LOMAX, J.W. II, & ST
TANLEY, M.A.
Psychological distress am
mong religiou
us nonbelieveers: A systematic review. JJournal of Religious
Health, 51, 72-86.
Y, R. 2010. Attheism and meental health. H
Harvard Reviiew of Psychoology, 18(3), 190-194.
WHITLEY
WHOQOL SRPB Group
p. 2002. WHO
OQOL SRPB uusers manuall: Scoring andd coding for tthe
WHOQOL SRPB field teest instrumentt. Geneva: W
World Health O
Organization.
WHOQOL SRPB Group
p. 2006. A cro
oss-cultural sttudy of spirituuality, religioon, and personnal beliefs
as componeents of quality
y of life. Sociial Science & Medicine, 622, 1486–14977.
WOHL, M.. J. A., BRAN
NSCOMBE, N.
N R., & REY
YSEN, S. 2010. Perceivingg your group’ss future to
be in jeoparrdy: Extinctio
on threat indu
uces collectivee angst and thhe desire to sttrengthen the ingroup.
Personalityy and Social Psychology
P
Bu
ulletin, 36(7) , 898-910.
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 129
TH
HIS PAGE IN
NTENTIONALLY LEFT B
BLANK.
Paage 130
Humanssystems®
Annex A – Scienti
S
ific Fundame
entalis
sm Sca
ale
Scientifiic Fundam
mentalism
m Scale - U
Upal and L
Legault (20
011)
1. Wheneveer science and
d religion con
nflict, sciencee is right.
2. Evolution
n is just a theeory similar to
o intelligent ddesign.*
3. I don't reeally understaand how any reasonable
r
peerson can doubbt the scientiffic consensuss on issues
such as global
g
warmin
ng.
4. Science will
w one day explain
e
all asp
pects of realitty including rreligion.
5. I detest th
he thought th
hat we are justt physical enttities with no spiritual or m
metaphysical ccomponent
to our beeing.*
6. Religion is needed to explain thosee aspects of thhe universe thhat science caannot and willl never be
able to ex
xplain.*
7. Over tim
me, modern scientific and raational thinkiing will continnue to replacee religion andd other
superstitiious ideas.
8. Rational thought and scientific metthod are the oonly way to discover truthss about realityy.
ubt science.
9. It is unreeasonable for people to dou
10. Of all th
he theories an
nd opinions off reality, sciennce is the besst and most rigorous set off principles
we’ve got.
g
11. Sciencee is only one of
o many meth
hods through w
which to undderstand the w
world around uus.*
12. It’s morre important to
t rely on ourr personal opiinions and observations thaan to rely on tthe
recomm
mendations off the scientificc community .*
13. In orderr to make progress in life, we must consstantly fight ffor teaching oof science to sschool
children
n.
14. People should consid
der all possiblle perspectivees of the worlld – spiritual, personal, artistic, etc –
not justt the view of scientific
s
reasson.*
15. Althoug
gh scientific theories
t
someetimes need too be revised, tthe ability of science to deescribe our
world is the only reaal way to mak
ke firm concluusions about rreality.
16. Sciencee is humanity’’s best hope for
f progress.
17. It’s imp
possible to reffute that scien
nce is responssible for the ggreatest advanncements in hhuman
existence.
oud of my rattional thinking and my scieentifically infformed worldd view.
18. I am pro
19. We hav
ve to be a littlee skeptical off some of the scientific claiims because sscientists alsoo have
their ow
wn agendas.*
20. Most allternative med
dicine approaaches such as homeopathy are junk sciennce because tthey have
not beeen shown to work
w
better thaan placebos.
*: reverse scored
s
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 131
TH
HIS PAGE IN
NTENTIONALLY LEFT B
BLANK.
Paage 132
Humanssystems®
Annex B – Creatio
C
onism Scale Versio
ons
Creation
nism Scale
e - Francis
s and Gee
er (1999b))
I believe in
n the scientificc view of the origins of thee world*
God created
d the world ass described in
n the Bible
Everything in the world was made by
y natural forcees*
The world was
w made by God in 6 day
ys each of 24 hours
God created
d the universee, including liiving creaturees, out of nothhing
I accept thee idea of evolu
ution creating
g everything oover millions of years*
God formed
d man out of the dust of th
he Earth
God made woman
w
out off man’s rib
God rested on the seventth day after he
h had finishedd his work off creation
Science dissproves the biblical accoun
nt of creation**
Scientists have
h
discovereed how the world
w
was madde*
*Reverse co
oded
Creation
nism Scale
e – Astley
y and Fran
ncis (2010
0)
The animalls and plants we
w know todaay have evolvved from earliier species*
All the adap
ptations of liv
ving things caan be explaineed by natural selection*
I accept thee idea of evolu
ution creating
g everything oover millions of years*
God created
d all the speciies of animalss and plants ddirectly
I believe th
hat God made the world in six days of 244 hours
God made woman
w
out off man’s rib
*Reverse co
oded
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 133
TH
HIS PAGE IN
NTENTIONALLY LEFT B
BLANK.
Paage 134
Humanssystems®
Annex C – Streng
S
gth of B
Beliefs
s Meas
sures
Commitment to Beliefs
B
(CT
TB; Maxwe
ell-Smith & Esses, 2012)
Belief Centtrality
Nothing is more
m
importaant to me than
n following m
my beliefs
My beliefs are the most important parrt of how I deefine myself aas a person
My beliefs are very impo
ortant to me
Living the lifestyle
l
sugg
gested by my beliefs
b
is my top priority
My beliefs influence how
w I spend my
y time (e.g., thhe groups, asssociations andd/or events thhat I
participate in)
My beliefs influence thee important ch
hoices I makee in my life
My beliefs are reflected in the way I behave
b
I am confid
dent that my beliefs
b
are true and valid
I feel uncom
mfortable wheen I do sometthing that goees against myy beliefs
I act accord
ding to my beliefs even if those
t
around m
me think thatt I shouldn’t
My beliefs do not have anything
a
to do
o with who I am as a persoon. (reversed))
My beliefs offer the mosst accurate an
nd ‘‘true’’ refllection of reallity
I would nott hesitate to arrgue in favor of my beliefss if called upoon to do so
Belief Tran
nscendence
My primary
y concern in life
l is to abidee by my belieefs; all other cconcerns are ssecondary
Without my
y beliefs, I wo
ould have notthing
Pursuing my
m beliefs is of paramount importance,
i
eeven if someoone (possibly myself) losess their life
in the proceess
Those who hold beliefs opposite
o
to my
m own are miisguided
I would actt in accordancce with my beeliefs even if iit meant harm
ming others
People need
d to adopt my
y beliefs in orrder to see thinngs clearly
When I believe in sometthing, it is wo
orth going to aall possible leengths to defeend that belieff
The potentiial consequen
nce of hurting others wouldd not stop me from followiing my belieffs
I give up my
m free time in
n order to eng
gage in activitties related too my beliefs
I spend my money in acccordance with
h my beliefs
It is difficult to convincee me that som
mething I belieeve in is wronng
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 135
W
World Health Organization Qu
uality of Life
L – Spirritual, Reliigious, an
nd
P
Personal Beliefs
B
(W
WHOQOL- SRPB)
S
P
Please note: th
his measure was
w designed to
t be used in conjunction w
with the Worlld Health
O
Organization Quality
Q
of Life
fe-100 (WHOQ
QOL-100) Insstrument.
In
nstructions:
The following questions ask
k about your spiritual,
s
relig
gious or persoonal beliefs annd how these beliefs
haave affected your
y
quality of
o life. These questions aree designed to bbe applicablee to people cooming
frrom many diffferent culturees and holding
g a variety off spiritual, reliigious or perssonal beliefs. If you
foollow a particular religion, such as Judaaism, Christian
nity, Islam orr Buddhism, yyou will probably
annswer the folllowing questiions with you
ur religious beeliefs in mind . If you do noot follow a paarticular
reeligion, but still believe thaat something higher
h
and more
m
powerful exists beyonnd the physicaal and
m
material world
d, you may answer the follo
owing questio
ons from that perspective. For example,, you
m
might believe in
i a higher sp
piritual force or
o the healing
g power of Naature. Alternaatively, you m
may
haave no belief in a higher, spiritual
s
entity
y, but you maay have strongg personal belliefs or follow
wings,
suuch as beliefs in a scientific theory, a peersonal way of
o life, a particcular philosopphy or a moraal and
etthical code.
W
While some off these questio
ons will use words
w
such as spirituality pplease answerr them in term
ms of
yoour own perso
onal belief sy
ystem, whetheer it be religio
ous, spiritual oor personal.
The following questions ask
k how your beeliefs have afffected differeent aspects off your quality of life
inn the past two
o weeks. For example,
e
one question askss "To what exxtent do you ffeel connectedd with
yoour mind bod
dy and soul?" If you have experienced
e
th
his very muchh, circle the nnumber next too "very
m
much". If you have not exp
perienced this at all, circle the number nnext to "Not aat all". You shhould
ciircle one of th
he numbers in
n between if you
y wish to in
ndicate your aanswer lies soomewhere bettween
"N
Not at all" and
d "very much
h". Questionss refer to the last
l two week
ks.
Ittems:
SP
P1.1 To whatt extent does any
a connectio
on to a spiritu
ual being helpp you to get thhrough hard tiimes?
SP
a connectio
on to a spiritu
ual being helpp you to toleraate stress?
SP
a connectio
on to a spiritu
ual being helpp you to underrstand others??
SP
a connectio
on to a spiritu
ual being provvide you withh comfort /
reeassurance?
SP
P 2.1 To whaat extent do yo
ou find meaniing in life?
SP
P2.2 To whatt extent does taking
t
care off other peoplee provide meaaning of life ffor you?
SP
P2.3 To whatt extent do yo
ou feel your life has a purpo
ose?
SP
ou feel you aree here for a reeason?
SP
ou feel inner spiritual
s
streng
gth?
SP
P5.2 To whatt extent can you find spiritu
ual strength in
n difficult tim
mes?
SP
P8.1 To whatt extent does faith
f
contribu
ute to your weell-being?
SP
f
give you
u comfort in daily
d
life?
SP
f
give you
u strength in daily
d
life?
SP
ou feel spirituaally touched by
b beauty?
SP
ou have feelin
ngs of inspirattion / excitem
ment in your liife?
SP
P3.4 To whatt extent are yo
ou grateful fo
or the things in
n nature that yyou can enjoyy?
SP
P7.1 How hopeful do you feel?
SP
P7.2 To whatt extent are yo
ou hopeful ab
bout your life??
Paage 136
Humanssystems®
SP3.1 To what
w extent aree you able to experience aw
we from yourr surroundinggs? (e.g. naturre, art,
music)
SP4.1 To what
w extent do
o you feel any
y connection bbetween yourr mind, body and soul?
SP4.3 To what
w extent do
o you feel the way you livee is consistentt with what yoou feel and thhink?
SP4.4 How
w much do you
ur beliefs help
p you to creatte coherence bbetween whaat you do, thinnk and
feel?
SP5.3 How
w much does spiritual
s
streng
gth help you to live better??
SP5.4 To what
w extent do
oes your spirittual strength hhelp you to feeel happy in llife?
SP6.1 To what
w extent do
o you feel peaaceful within yyourself?
SP6.2 To what
w extent do
o you have inn
ner peace?
SP6.3 How
w much are yo
ou able to feell peaceful wh en you need tto?
SP6.4 To what
w extent do
o you feel a seense of harmoony in your liife?
SP7.3 To what
w extent do
oes being optiimistic improvve your qualiity of life?
SP7.4 How
w able are you
u to remain op
ptimistic in tim
mes of uncerttainty?
SP8.4 To what
w extent do
oes faith help you to enjoy life?
SP4.2 How
w satisfied are you that you have a balannce between m
mind, body annd soul?
As part of the
t “About yo
ou” portion off the WHOQO
OL-100 instruument there aare five items about
religion/spiirituality/personal beliefs:
To what ex
xtent do you consider yoursself to be a reeligious person?
To what ex
xtent do you consider yoursself to be partt of a religiouus communityy?
If so, which
h religious community are you a part off?
To what ex
xtent do you have
h
spiritual beliefs?
To what ex
xtent do you have
h
strong peersonal belieffs?
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 137
A
Annex D – Sc
cales measu
m
ring A
Attitude
es
Tow
ward Science
S
e
A
Attitude to
owards Sc
cience (Me
enis, 1989)
Imporrtance of Sciencce Subscale
Sccience is useful for solving the problems
p
of everyyday life
Sccience has ruineed the environmeent (reverse scored)
Sccience is very im
mportant for a country’s developm
ment
Money spent on science
s
is well worth spending
Much of the anxieety in modern socciety is due to sccience (reverse scored)
Sccientific inventions improve our standard
s
of livingg
Sccientific inventions have increaseed tensions betw
ween people (revverse scored)
Sccience will help to
t make the worrld a better placee in the future
Sccientific discoverries do more harrm than good (reeverse scored)
Sccience and technnology are the cause of many off the world’s problems (reverse sscored)
Attitude towaard Science as a Career Subs cale
W
Working in a sciennce laboratory would
w
be an interresting way to eaarn a living
In the future most jobs will requiree a knowledge off science
Peeople who understand science are
a better off in our
o society
It is important to know
k
science in order
o
to get a goood job
In my future careeer, I would like too use the sciencee I learned in school
Iw
would like to beccome a science teacher
t
when I leave school
Attitude toward Science in the School Curricculum
Sccience in an enjooyable school suubject
Thhe science taughht in school is intteresting
Sccience is a difficult subject (reverse scored)
Sccience is difficultt when it involves calculations (reverse scored)
Sccience is difficultt when it involves handling appaaratus (reverse scored)
s
Thhere are too manny facts to learn in science (reveerse scored)
Sccience is relevannt to everyday liffe
Paage 138
Humanssystems®
Annex E – FAD-pl
F
lus (Pa
aulhus
s & Carrey, 20
011)
For each staatement below
w, choose a number
n
from 1 to 5 to indiccate how mucch you agree oor
disagree.
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
Strongly disagree
Strongly aggree
1. I believe that the futurre has already
y been determ
mined by fate.
2. People’s biological makeup
m
determ
mines their tallents and perssonality.
3. Chance events
e
seem to
o be the majo
or cause of huuman history.
4. People have completee control overr the decisionss they make.
5. No matteer how hard you
y try, you caan’t change yyour destiny.
6. Psycholo
ogists and psy
ychiatrists willl eventually ¿
¿gure out all human behavvior.
7. No one can
c predict wh
hat will happeen in this worrld.
8. People must
m take full responsibility
y for any bad choices they make.
9. Fate already has a plan
n for everyon
ne.
10. Your geenes determin
ne your futuree.
11. Life seeems unpredicttable—just lik
ke throwing ddice or Àippinng a coin.
12. People can overcomee any obstaclees if they trully want to.
13. Whatev
ver will be, wiill be—there’s not much yyou can do aboout it.
14. Sciencee has shown how
h your pastt environmentt created yourr current intellligence and
personality.
15. People are unpredicttable.
16. Criminaals are totally
y responsible for
f the bad thhings they do.
17. Whetheer people like it or not, myssterious forcees seem to moove their livess.
18. As with
h other animalls, human beh
havior alwayss follows the laws of naturre.
19. Life is hard
h
to predicct because it is almost totallly random.
20. Luck pllays a big rolee in people’s lives.
21. People have complette free will.
22. Parents’ character will determine the characterr of their childdren.
23. People are always att fault for theiir bad behavioor.
24. Childho
ood environm
ment will deterrmine your suuccess as an aadult.
25. What haappens to peo
ople is a matteer of chance.
26. Strength
h of mind can
n always overrcome the boddy’s desires.
27. People’s futures cann
not be predictted.
Subscales
4 8, 12, 16, 21,
2 23, 26
Free Will: 4,
Scienti¿c Determinism:
D
2, 6, 10, 14, 18, 22, 24
Fatalistic Determinism:
D
7
1, 5, 9, 13, 17
Unpredictab
bility: 3, 7, 11, 15, 19, 20, 25, 27
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 139
TH
HIS PAGE IN
NTENTIONALLY LEFT B
BLANK.
Paage 140
Humanssystems®
DO
OCUMENT CO
ONTROL DATA
A
(Security classification of title,, body of abstract and
a indexing annootation must be enttered when the oveerall document is cclassified)
1.
ORIGINATOR
R (The name and add
dress of the organizattion preparing the doocument.
Organizations for whom the docum
ment was prepared, e.g
g. Centre sponsoringg a
contractor's rep
port, or tasking agenccy, are entered in secction 8.)
2..
Humansy
ystems Incorp
porated
111 Farqu
uhar Street
Guelph, ON
O
N1H 3N4
3.
SECURITY CL
LASSIFICATION
(Overall securityy classification of thee document
including speciall warning terms if appplicable.)
UNCLASS
SIFIED
(NON-CON
NTROLLED G
GOODS)
DMC A
GCEC June 2
2010
REVIEW: G
TITLE (The co
omplete document title as indicated on thee title page. Its classiification should be inndicated by the approopriate abbreviation ((S, C or U)
in parentheses after the title.)
A Revie
ew of Socia
al Science Literature o
on Social IIdentity Dyn
namics and Scientific
Fundame
entalism
4.
AUTHORS (laast name, followed by initials – ranks, titlles, etc. not to be useed)
Irene Che
eung; Yvonne
e DeWit; Emily
y-Ana Filardo
o; Michael H. Thomson; Ba
arbara D. Ada
ams
5.
DATE OF PU
UBLICATION
(Month and year of publication of document.)
d
March 2012
7.
6a. NO. OF PAG
GES
6b. NO. OF REF
FS
(Total containning information,
(Total cited in document.)
including Annnexes, Appendices,
etc.)
15
54
100
0
DESCRIPTIV
VE NOTES (The cateegory of the documen
nt, e.g. technical repoort, technical note orr memorandum. If apppropriate, enter the ttype of report,
e.g. interim, prrogress, summary, an
nnual or final. Give th
he inclusive dates whhen a specific reportinng period is covered.)
Contract Report
8.
SPONSORIN
NG ACTIVITY (The name
n
of the departmeent project office or llaboratory sponsorinng the research and deevelopment – includee address.)
Defence R&D
R
Canada – Toronto
1133 She
eppard Avenu
ue West
P.O. Box 2000
O
M3M 3B9
Toronto, Ontario
9a. PROJECT OR
R GRANT NO. (If appropriate,
a
the appliicable research
and developmeent project or grant nu
umber under which the
t document
was written. Pllease specify whetherr project or grant.)
9b. CONTRACT NO. (If appropriate,, the applicable numbber under
which the docuument was written.)
W7711-0
088136/001/T
TOR
10a. ORIGINATOR
R'S DOCUMENT NUMBER
N
(The officiial document
number by whiich the document is identified
i
by the originating
activity. This number
n
must be uniqu
ue to this document.))
[if used]
10b. OTHER DOC
CUMENT NO(s). (A
Any other numbers w
which may be
assigned this ddocument either by thhe originator or by thhe sponsor.)
DRDC To
oronto CR 20
012-077
11. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY (An
ny limitations on furtther dissemination off the document, otherr than those imposedd by security classificcation.)
Unlimited
12. DOCUMENT ANNOUNCEMENT
T (Any limitation to the bibliographic annnouncement of this ddocument. This will nnormally correspondd to the
Document Avaailability (11). Howev
ver, where further distribution (beyond thhe audience specifiedd in (11) is possible, a wider announcemeent
audience may be
b selected.))
Unlimited
Humansystem
ms®
Social Iden
Page 141
13. ABSTRACT (A
A brief and facttual summary of
o the documen
nt. It may also a
appear elsewh ere in the bodyy of the
document itself. It is highly desirable that th
he abstract of classified
c
docu
uments be unclassified. Each
paragraph of the abstract sha
all begin with an
a indication off the security cl assification off the informatio
on in the
paragraph (unless the docum
ment itself is un
nclassified) represented as (S
S), (C), (R), or ((U). It is not necessary
to include herre abstracts in both
b
official lan
nguages unless
s the text is bili ngual.)
The main purpose of the Human
n Terrain Visualiz
zation and Simula
ation (HTVis) pro
oject is to develo
op computer toolss that
can help Canadian decision mak
kers envision and
d simulate aspec
cts of human terrrain. The presentt report reviews
literature from Social
S
Identity The
eory (SIT; Tajfel and Turner, 197
79) to help the de
evelopment of su
uch computer too
ols for
use in Canadian
n Forces (CF) tra
aining initiatives. This review was guided by three primary questio ns:
1.
2.
3.
How do
d sociostructura
al beliefs influenc
ce social identity management strrategies for high and low status
group
ps?
How do
d sociostructura
al beliefs influenc
ce intergroup perrceptions?
How do
d social identity
y management sttrategies influenc
ce intergroup perrceptions?
The papers revie
ewed show that beliefs about soc
ciostructural variables (i.e., perce
eptions of status stability, legitima
acy,
and permeability
y) can influence identity managem
ment strategies (i.e.,
(
social comp
petition, individua
al mobility, or soccial
creativity). Rese
earch suggests th
hat, even though high and low sta
atus groups mayy have different m
motivations, theyy may
use similar or different strategies
s. But this is often dependent on the level of identtification with the
e ingroup and the
eir
he sociostructura
al context. Resultts of the literature review also sh owed some rese
earch examining the
perceptions of th
impact of socios
structural beliefs on intergroup pe
erceptions. There
e is very little ressearch that addre
esses the impactt of
identity manage
ement strategies on intergroup pe
erceptions. Howe
ever, there is rese
earch considerin
ng other kinds of
strategies, outside of the three core
c
strategies, and
a how these im
mpact perceptionss. Another goal o
of the project was to
examine psycho
ological literature
e pertaining to secular or scientific
c fundamentalism
m and to identify any relevant
psychometric sc
cales.
Le projet de Visualisation et de simulation
s
de la dimension
d
humaine (HTVis) a po
our objet de mett re au point des o
outils
informatiques po
ouvant aider les décideurs canad
diens à visualiserr et à simuler dess aspects de la d
dimension humaiine. Le
présent rapport examine la docu
umentation sur la
a théorie de l’iden
ntité sociale (TIS
S; Tajfel et Turne r, 1979) afin de
permettre la mis
se au point d’outils informatiques qui serviront dan
ns le cadre des i nitiatives d’instru
uction des Forces
canadiennes (FC
C). Cet examen se fondait sur tro
ois grandes ques
stions :
1.
2.
3.
Quelle
e influence les crroyances sociosttructurelles ont-e
elles sur les straté
égies de gestion
n de l’identité socciale
des groupes à statut supérieur
s
et inférrieur?
Quelle
e influence les crroyances sociosttructurelles ont-e
elles sur les perce
eptions intergrou
upes?
Quelle
e influence les sttratégies de gesttion de l’identité sociale
s
ont-elles sur les perceptio
ons intergroupess?
D’après les docu
uments examiné
és, les croyances
s relatives aux va
ariables sociostru
ucturelles (c.-à-d . les perceptionss en
matière de stabiilité du statut, de légitimité, et de perméabilité) pe
euvent influencerr les stratégies de
e gestion de l’ide
entité
(c.-à-d. la concu
urrence sociale, la mobilité individ
duelle ou la créattivité sociale). La
a recherche indiq
que que, bien que
e les
groupes de statu
ut supérieur et in
nférieur puissent avoir des motiva
ations différentess, ceux-ci peuven
nt utiliser des stra
atégies
semblables ou différentes.
d
Mais cela dépend sou
uvent du degré d’identification
d
avvec l’endogroupe
e et de la percepttion du
contexte sociosttructurel. Les rés
sultats de l’exame
en de la docume
entation ont perm
mis de cerner cerrtains travaux de
recherche portant sur l’impact de
es croyances soc
ciostructurelles sur
s les perception
ns intergroupes. Il existe très peu
u de
travaux portant sur
s l’incidence des stratégies de gestion de l’iden
ntité sur les perce
eptions intergrou
upes. Cependantt, on
trouve des trava
aux examinant d’autres sortes de stratégies, en dehors des trois sstratégies de basse, et l’influence que
ations de psycho
celles-ci ont sur les perceptions. Le projet visait également
é
un au
utre objectif : exa
aminer les publica
ologie
relative au fonda
amentalisme séc
culier ou scientifiq
que et recenser tout
t
barème psyychométrique perrtinent.
14. KEYWORDS, DES
SCRIPTORS or IDE
ENTIFIERS (Technically meaningful terrms or short phrases tthat characterize a doocument and could bbe
helpful in cataloguin
ng the document. Theey should be selected
d so that no security classification
c
is requiired. Identifiers, suchh as equipment modeel
designation, trade naame, military project code name, geograp
phic location may also
o be included. If posssible keywords shouuld be selected from a
published thesaurus,, e.g. Thesaurus of En
ngineering and Scien
ntific Terms (TEST) and that thesaurus iddentified. If it is not ppossible to select
indexing terms whicch are Unclassified, th
he classification of each should be indicaated as with the title.))
social identity
y; human terrrain; socio-culltural modelin
ng
Paage 142
Humanssystems®

Defence Research Reports

Transcription

Similar documents

Computer Components

te sting t times rh red shi hospita ield ality o on show w

pg 30 2 Two Bit/Halo - Arizona Horse Connection Magazine

NO MEETlNG PACKET

International Agenda - Schoolcraft College

George V, George VI, or any other George

EAESP Small Group Meeting on Dehumanization

Pilot Project to Eradicate Invasive Alien Smallmouth Bass

the Bulletin