“I Want, Therefore I Am” – Anticipated Upward Mobility Reduces Ingroup Concern

Abstract

Empirical findings suggest that members of socially disadvantaged groups who join a better-valued group through individual achievement tend to express low concern for their disadvantaged ingroup (e.g., denial of collective discrimination, low intent to initiate collective action). In the present research, we investigated whether this tendency occurs solely for individuals who have already engaged in social mobility, or also for individuals who psychologically prepare themselves, that is ‘anticipate’, social mobility. Moreover, we examined the role of group identification in this process. In two studies, we looked at the case of ‘frontier workers’, that is people who cross a national border every day to work in another country where the salaries are higher thereby achieving a better socio-economic status than in their home-country. Study 1 (N = 176) examined attitudes of French nationals (both the socially mobile and the non-mobile) and of Swiss nationals toward the non-mobile group. As expected, results showed that the mobile French had more negative attitudes than their non-mobile counterparts, but less negative attitudes than the Swiss. In Study 2 (N = 216), we examined ingroup concern at different stages of the social mobility process by comparing the attitudes of French people who worked in Switzerland (mobile individuals), with those who envisioned (anticipators), or not (non-anticipators), to work in Switzerland. The findings revealed that anticipators’ motivation to get personally involved in collective action for their French ingroup was lower than the non-anticipators’, but higher than the mobile individuals’. Moreover, we found that the decrease in ingroup concern across the different stages of social mobility was accounted for by a lower identification with the inherited ingroup. These findings corroborate the deleterious impact of social mobility on attitudes toward a low-status ingroup, and show that the decrease in ingroup concern already occurs among individuals who anticipate moving up the hierarchy. The discussion focuses on the role of the discounting of inherited identities in both the anticipation and the achievement of a higher-status identity.

The “ironic” fair process effect: A perceived fair naturalization procedure spurs anti-immigration attitudes through increased host national identification among naturalized citizens

“…Third, our results also shed light on the mediating social-psychological processes involved in upward mobility. Whereas most scholars do not contradict the observation that mobile individuals appear as motivated as high-status group members to renounce former lower status group members, the psychological mechanisms they ascribe to this phenomenon have been more contested (for contrasting explanations, see e.g., Chipeaux et al, 2017; Kulich et al, 2015). Our results suggest that enhanced engagement with one’s newly acquired group membership may well be an important intermediary psychological process.…”

“…Some scholars interpreted this finding in terms of anticipation of the mobility experience. For example, Chipeaux et al (2017) showed that the mere prospect of upward mobility evoked similar harmful attitudes among mobile individuals towards their nonmobile former compatriots. Others interpreted this finding in terms of consequences of the mobility experience.…”

“…Secondly, Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) posits that social identification with a group leads to both ingroup favoritism and outgroup F o r P e e r R e v i e w derogation. And indeed, upward mobility has been associated with increased identification with the new (higher-) status group on one hand, and less concern for and more prejudice towards the former (lower-) status group on the other (Chipeaux, Kulich, Iacoviello, & Lorenzi-Cioldi, 2017;Kulich et al, 2015). In a similar vein, recent studies have demonstrated that identification with the host nation and negative attitudes towards immigrants may coincide (Adam-Troian, Arciszewski, & Apostolidis, 2019;Wagner et al, 2012), particularly when increased host national identification is paired with the normative pressure to assimilate and give up one's previous markers of identity (Jasinskaja-Lahti et al, 2019;Politi, Roblain, Gale, Licata, & Staerklé, 2020).…”

Group evaluations as self‐group distancing: Ingroup typicality moderates evaluative intergroup bias in stigmatized groups

“…These speculations are consistent with social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), which highlights that individual mobility necessarily implies that stigmatized group members dis-identify with the ingroup. In fact, previous research has documented that individual mobility is related to ingroup identification, and that those who anticipate upward mobility also tend to have more negative attitudes regarding the ingroup (e.g., Chipeaux, Kulich, Iacoviello, & Lorenzi-Cioldi, 2017).…”

Smoker identity and resistance to antismoking campaigns: The role of group entitativity

“…In this research, however, we consider that entitativity and identification can be examined as two independent constructs, the former as a moderator of the latter. Indeed, it seems equally possible that people identify with low-entitative groups such as large and diversified groups formed on the basis of age or gender, or that they belong to groups with a strong entitativity without feeling identified, like, for instance, in the case where people from low-status groups anticipate social mobility (see e.g., Chipeaux, Kulich, Iacoviello, & Lorenzi-Cioldi, 2017). Moreover, both constructs are distinct in terms of the effects that they can produce on in-group behaviour.…”