Low status groups show in-group favoritism to compensate for their low status and compete for higher status

Abstract

The present research investigated the intergroup allocation behavior of members of low status groups. In two studies where status relations were either relatively illegitimate (Study 1, N = 139) or legitimate (Study 2, N = 114), undergraduate students completed a minimal group resource allocation task that took into account the intergroup status hierarchy. In both studies, members of low status groups showed two forms of in-group favoritism. They selected resource allocation choices that (a) compensated for their low status and led to intergroup fairness (compensatory favoritism) and (b) competed with the out-group for status and led to positive distinctiveness for the in-group (competitive favoritism). These results suggest that members of low status groups use in-group favoritism to make their group (a) as good as the high status out-group and (b) better than the high status out-group. The findings support the idea that in-group favoritism can serve different functions.KEYWORDS: in-group favoritism; intergroup fairness; low status groups; social identity theory; minimal group. LOW STATUS GROUPS' IN-GROUP FAVORITISM 3Low Status Groups Show In-Group Favoritism to Compensate for their Low Status and to Compete for Higher Status Group status refers to the relative position of a group on an evaluative dimension based on intergroup comparisons with other relevant social groups (e.g., Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Previous research has demonstrated that members of low status groups sometimes show out-group favoritism (e.g., Riechl, 1997;Sachdev & Bourhis, 1987, 1991Turner & Brown, 1978) and sometimes show in-group favoritism (e.g., Branthwaite, Doyle, & Lightbown, 1979;Commins & Lockwood, 1979b;Klein & Azzi, 2001;Mummendey et al., 1992;Reichl, 1997;Sachdev & Bourhis, 1984;Scheepers, Spears, Doosje, & Manstead, 2006;Turner & Brown, 1978; van Knippenberg, 1984; for reviews, see Bettencourt, Charlton, Dorr, & Hume, 2001;Brewer, 1979;Mullen, Brown, & Smith, 1992). Key moderators of these in-group and out-group favoritism effects are the stability and legitimacy of the intergroup status hierarchy (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). When status relations are perceived to be unstable and illegitimate, members of low status groups tend to show in-group favoritism (e.g., Bettencourt et al., 2001). In contrast, when status relations are perceived to be stable and legitimate, members of low status groups tend to show out-group favoritism, especially on statusrelevant dimensions (Bettencourt et al., 2001;Mullen et al., 1992).Low status groups' out-group favoritism has generated considerable debate and discussion in the literature because it represents a theoretically-important exception to the more common in-group favoritism effect Rubin & Hewstone, 2004). Following social identity theory, Rubin and Hewstone (2004) conceptualize this low status group out-group favoritism as consensual discrimination because it reflects consensual perceptions of intergroup status that are held by members of both the high and low status groups. In contrast...

The Minimal Group Paradigm and its maximal impact in research on social categorization

“…Specifically, following suggestions that Tajfel's intergroup allocation matrices were not measuring the various allocation strategies independently [5,13], new matrices were developed. Initial findings were replicated using these new matrices [13,14,15 ].…”

Towards a Clearer Understanding of Social Identity Theory’s Self-Esteem Hypothesis

“…The underlying principles of SIT imply that group members should also be concerned about avoiding negative in-group status and a negative social identity. Rubin, Badea, and Jetten ( 2014 ) recently advanced this negative identity avoidance hypothesis in order to explain why members of low status groups use in-group favouritism to draw even in status with high status out-groups rather than to attempt to surpass them in status.…”

Status, power, and intergroup relations: the personal is the societal

“…Leaders recognize this threat posed by a unified lower-status group, and actually undermine their highly-skilled subordinates’ group cohesion to maintain the status quo (37). Dominance-oriented leaders threatened by competent underlings will restrict their subordinates’ communications with each other, physically sequester them, and discourage their bonding.…”