Competition and intergroup bias: Toward a new construal process framework distinguishing competitive perceptions from competitive motivations

Abstract

Research on the effects of intergroup competition has relied on various conceptual approaches and has produced inconsistent findings. Following a review of the intergroup competition literature, we propose a framework which emphasizes that the influence of intergroup competition varies primarily according to participants' construal of potentially competitive events. We assess this via two variables: competitive intergroup perceptions (CIP), the perception that one's ingroup and another group(s) in the current situation are attempting to gain a reward at each other's expense; and competitive intergroup motivations (CIM), the individual desire for one's group to do better or acquire more of a reward than the other group(s). In four studies that presented participants with an ambiguously competitive intergroup setting and administered CIP and CIM scales adapted for the context, both variables were empirically nonredundant (Studies 1-4) and showed unique relations with intergroup outcomes: CIM, rather than CIP, was directly associated with greater intergroup bias (Studies 2-4), discriminatory intentions (Study 3), and discriminatory behavior (Study 4). CIP consistently registered an indirect effect on intergroup bias and behavior through CIM. Our results suggest that in ambiguous group contexts, CIM facilitates the pursuit of goals for the ingroup, which may involve expressing intergroup bias and more antisocial outgroup behavior, and that these tendencies are quite sensitive to corresponding changes in CIP. The current framework offers more precise insights into the influence of competitive group dynamics, and can easily be integrated with other research paradigms to determine how and when intergroup competition produces intergroup bias and discrimination.

Marketing as a Means to Transformative Social Conflict Resolution: Lessons from Transitioning War Economies and the Colombian Coffee Marketing System

“…Therefore, applied theories of conflict have developed, blending the four grand schools of thought to characterize the parties, objects, behaviors, levels, and dynamics of the conflict under study. For example, scholars have developed specific theories to characterize family conflict (Finkel et al 2013), social media conflict (Husemann, Ladstaetter, and Luedicke 2015;Sibai et al 2015), intergroup conflict (Maxwell-Smith et al 2016), organizational conflict (Rahim 2002), social class conflict (Marx and Engels [1848] 1969), international conflict (Most and Starr 1983), and conflict in dynamic systems (Lewin [1948] 1997), including marketing systems (e.g., Fisk 1967;Hill and Martin 2014;Shultz 2007). Here, our interest lies in marketing systems fractured by civil wars-the preponderant form of internecine social conflict since the end of the Cold War (Elbadawi and Sambanis 2002;Pettersson and Wallensteen 2015;Shultz et al 2005).…”

A gentle reminder that mean does not imply modal behavior: Few are in‐group biased in minimal groups

“…The data reported here suggest that individual differences – perhaps in personality (see Dreu, Dussel & Velden, 2015; Hodson & Dhont, 2015; Reynolds, Turner, Alexander Haslam, Ryan, Bizumic & Subasic, 2007; Van Vugt, De Cremer & Janssen, 2007) or in task strategy (Guala & Filippin, 2017; Maxwell‐Smith et al ., 2016) – rather than general group processes occurring for all individuals, explain in‐group bias in minimal groups. Further, the data reported here suggest that in‐group bias may commonly be motivated by ideas of competition between groups or reciprocal expectancies on the own group (even though the task instructions did not allow for this) (Maxwell‐Smith et al ., 2016; Rabbie et al ., 1989).…”

“…The main addition in Study 2 and 3 was that participants reported their motivations for their allocations. I wanted to know whether those who were in-group biased were motivated by a desire to favor their in-group (as predicted by SIT) or some other factor, for example a competitive motivation (Maxwell-Smith, Barnes, Wright, Thomson, Mattos & Dumas, 2016) or reciprocal expectations (Rabbie, Schot & Visser, 1989).…”

Interteam Cooperation and Competition and Boundary Activities: The Cross-Level Mediation of Team Goal Orientations

“…Drawing on the construal process framework of intergroup relations [11], we propose that boundary activities are driven by team members’ perceptions of whether their team is in a cooperative or competitive stance with other teams. The construal process framework of intergroup relations conceptualizes interteam cooperation and competition based on team members’ perceptions of the team’s current situation [11]. This is due to the reasoning that individuals’ subjective perception and interpretation of a potentially cooperative or competitive situation more strongly affect their behavior than the actual situation itself.…”

“…However, because boundary activities involve interteam interactions, interteam dynamics or relations need to be considered a key antecedent of individual boundary activities. Building on the construal process framework of intergroup relations [11], which posits that team members’ perceptions of intergroup cooperation and competition determine their intergroup behaviors, we argue that team members’ perceptions of interteam cooperation and competition serve as pivotal contextual factors influencing their boundary activities after controlling for their individual differences. Thus, the aim of our study is to examine how interteam cooperation and competition affect different boundary activities at the individual level.…”