Social identity, relative group status and intergroup attitudes: when favourable outcomes change intergroup relations…for the worse

Guimond, Serge; Dif, Stéphane; Aupy, Annabelle

doi:10.1002/ejsp.118

Cited by 58 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This process interacts with group status (see Bettencourt, Door, Charlton, & Hume, 2001 for review). Namely, high-status group members almost systematically favor their own group and sometimes derogate the outgroup, whereas low-status group members often exhibit outgroup favoritism, i.e., favoring the high-status group (Brown, 1995, for review;Guimond, Dif, & Aupy, 2002). On this basis, authors (Dubois & Beauvois, 1996;Dubois, Beauvois, Gilibert, & Zentner, 2000;Pansu et al, 2005) have considered that, as people tend to attribute more positive judgments to their ingroup in equivalent intergroup relations, then a judgment systematically attributed to an ingroup should be considered socially valued.…”

Section: Intergroup Biases As Indicators Of the Social Valorization Omentioning

confidence: 99%

When Attribution of Consistency Depends on Group Value: Social Valorization of Preference for Consistency in Equivalent and Asymmetric Intergroup Relations

Sénémeaud¹,

Mange²,

Somat

2016

rips

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The social valorization of Preference For Consistency (PFC) was examined via a minimal group paradigm activating either equivalent or asymmetric intergroup relations. After an aesthetic judgment task and assignment to one of two groups, participants (N = 298) completed the PFC scale according to three instructions: on their own behalf, as an ingroup member, or as an outgroup member (order counter-balanced). Results showed that in equivalent intergroup relations, participants attributed greater PFC to the ingroup and to the self than to the outgroup. In asymmetric intergroup relations, participants attributed greater PFC to the high-status group and to the self than to the low-status group, and this was independent of the participants' group membership. We discuss the contribution the minimal group paradigm can make to revealing the social valorization of psychological constructs and the mechanisms underlying the social value accorded to PFC.

show abstract

Section: Intergroup Biases As Indicators Of the Social Valorization Omentioning

confidence: 99%

When Attribution of Consistency Depends on Group Value: Social Valorization of Preference for Consistency in Equivalent and Asymmetric Intergroup Relations

Sénémeaud¹,

Mange²,

Somat

2016

rips

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Displays of ingroup favoritism and outgroup derogation are most common among members of advantaged rather than disadvantaged groups (Guimond, Dif, & Aupy, 2002;Sidanius, Pratto, Martin, & Stallworth, 1991). Even though legislative changes in recent history have given rise to the social consensus that discrimination is morally objectionable (Plant & Devine, 1998), more subtle, indirect forms of discrimination and 3…”

Section: Opposition To Social Equality and Group Positionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Thou shalt not discriminate: How emphasizing moral ideals rather than obligations increases Whites' support for social equality

Does

Derks

Ellemers

2011

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An important step toward reducing group-based disparities in society is creating support for equality among advantaged group members (e.g., Whites, men). The current research examined how presenting social equality between ethnic groups in terms of moral ideals (i.e., equal treatment) vs. moral obligations (i.e., non-discrimination) affected the attitudes of Whites (students in Study 1, N = 45 and 2, N = 44 and employees in Study 3a, N = 67 and Study 3b, N = 62) toward various social equality issues. Results showed that participants in the moral ideals condition reported more activation rather than inhibition action tendencies related to improving equality (Study 1), were more supportive of affirmative action (Study 2), indicated lower levels of threat to their social identity, and held more favorable attitudes towards cultural diversity which resulted in greater prioritization of equality (Study 3a). These effects did not arise when the ideals/obligations distinction was applied to a nonmoral domain (i.e., competence, Study 3b), underlining the central argument that these processes are specific to morality. The theoretical implications and limitations of the current work are discussed.Keywords: morality, intergroup relations, motivation, social equality 2 We live in a world that is still marked by inequality between social groups (e.g., Whites versus Blacks, men versus women). It has been argued that an effective means for establishing a more equal society is by use of affirmative action (i.e., policies aimed at increasing the entrance of disadvantaged group members in educational and/or professional settings, Crosby, Iyer, & Sincharoen, 2006). The success of affirmative action is partly determined by the endorsement of such programs by currently advantaged groups (e.g., Whites, men). However, support for policies that promote equality is often the lowest among advantaged group members (e.g., Niemann & Dovidio, 1998). Previous work has aimed to increase support for affirmative action by focusing advantaged group members on moral wrongdoings committed by their group (e.g., colonialism, slavery). A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPTWe argue that this approach may be suboptimal. The current research aims to demonstrate that a moral incentive presented in terms of ideals (a focus on approaching positive moral outcomes) rather than obligations (a focus on avoiding negative moral outcomes) stimulates more favorable attitudes among advantaged group members toward social equality issues, including affirmative action. Opposition to Social Equality and Group PositionDisplays of ingroup favoritism and outgroup derogation are most common among members of advantaged rather than disadvantaged groups (Guimond, Dif, & Aupy, 2002;Sidanius, Pratto, Martin, & Stallworth, 1991). Even though legislative changes in recent history have given rise to the social consensus that discrimination is morally objectionable (Plant & Devine, 1998), more subtle, indirect forms of discrimination and 3 A C C E P T E D M ...

show abstract

“…The identity problem of high status groups is generally more to maintain than to obtain a positive social identity (e.g. Guimond et al, 2002). In a direct demonstration of social identity threat, Scheepers and Ellemers (2005) showed that social identity threats do not only occur in low status groups, but also in high status groups when the possibility is made salient that the group may lose its relative advantage.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Theoretically, this has been explained as a result of the fact that intergroup comparisons between low-and high-status groups will enhance or maintain positive social identity only among members of the latter (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). While not being identical with high status, high power is an equivalent concept 3 which, in some studies, has turned out to eliminate the PNAE (Amiot & Bourhis, 2005a;Guimond, Dif, & Aupy, 2002).…”

Section: Group Status As Vitality and As A Predictor Of Intergroup Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Liebkind

Henning-Lindblom

Solheim

2008

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Social identity, relative group status and intergroup attitudes: when favourable outcomes change intergroup relations…for the worse

Cited by 58 publications

References 64 publications

When Attribution of Consistency Depends on Group Value: Social Valorization of Preference for Consistency in Equivalent and Asymmetric Intergroup Relations

When Attribution of Consistency Depends on Group Value: Social Valorization of Preference for Consistency in Equivalent and Asymmetric Intergroup Relations

Thou shalt not discriminate: How emphasizing moral ideals rather than obligations increases Whites' support for social equality

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About