Group size, group status and trait valence as determinants of intergroup bias: Stereotyping in Finland and Sweden

Abstract

The effects of group size, group status and trait valence (positive or negative stereotypes of in-and outgroup) on intergroup bias was studied in nation-wide probability samples of majority and minority groups in Finland and Sweden, (N ¼ 2479). Ethnolinguistic vitality was used as a proxy for status. It is argued that the specific history of real-life intergroup relations has to be duly acknowledged when predicting main and interactive effects on intergroup bias in natural contexts. Supporting the predictions made, numerical group size showed a stable main effect; members of numerical minorities showed more bias than members of numerical majorities, regardless of trait valence. While status had no main effect, there was a significant interaction between status and size as well as between status and trait valence: intergroup bias was highest in the high status minority, and low status groups showed less bias than high status groups on negatively valenced traits. In fact, minority members showed the reverse of PNAE. In addition, majority members favoured the outgroup on negatively valenced traits, but favoured their ingroup on positively valenced traits. Different explanations for these results are discussed.

Ingroup vitality and intergroup attitudes in a linguistic minority

“…The importance of subjective perceptions of ingroup status has long been acknowledged within research on the vitality of ethnolinguistic groups (Giles, Bourhis & Taylor, 1977), where overall ingroup status is conceptualized in terms of the vitality of the language groups concerned (Liebkind, Henning‐Lindblom & Solheim, 2006). Multilingual contexts are typically less clear‐cut in terms of intergroup status and power relations than those involving traditionally studied minority groups, causing more individual variation in subjective assessment of group status.…”

Reducing prejudice in organizations: The role of intergroup contact, out‐group homogeneity, and in‐group size

“…However, due to the small sample size of ethnic minorities within each congregation, we were unable to examine minority members' bias toward the majority White group members. It should be noted that other researchers (e.g., Liebkind et al, 2008) have found that minority group members are more prejudiced than majority group members, so perhaps future research can compare the relative degree of prejudicial attitudes within both groups. In general, further research is warranted with larger heterogeneous groups.…”

“…So far, studies on the eff ects of group size on intergroup bias and prejudice have been primarily experimental and often within the minimal group paradigm utilizing groups that are not rooted with historical confl icts, thus lacking external validity (Ellemers & Barreto, 2001). Th e small number of experimental studies incorporating real social categories (e.g., Reynolds, Turner, & Haslam, 2000) mostly represented small samples of college students (Liebkind, Henning-Lindblom, & Solheim, 2008). Only a few studies examined the eff ects of group size on intergroup bias and prejudice.…”

Group status, minorities and trust

“…Experiments with natural groups are less likely to employ deception (e.g., Aberson and Howanski's, 2002, attitudinal study), but, as noted above, once natural groups as opposed to artificial groups are introduced, the question arises of disentangling what we might label as the 'pure' effect of group membership and intergroup relations from what may be, and often plausibly are, expectations and stereotyping effects at play (e.g., Arifovic et al 2012;Liebkind et al 2008). This is what makes employing artificial groups desirable in a first step to identify the pure causal impact of relative size and status.…”