Sociopsychological profiles of students that leave the ingroup or engage in social competition

Abstract

We present a study of the sociopsychological profiles of students who are disposed to engage in social competition on behalf of ingroup interests. Five predictors were selected: the advantageous or unfavourable context for ingroup interests, group identification, meritocracy, just-world beliefs, and social dominance orientation. It was found that those students who were prepared to invest personal resources on behalf of ingroup interests were characterized by a strong group identification and middle or low scores in the meritocracy and social dominance orientation. In contrast, students with the lowest disposition to social competition were defined by their low identification and/or middle-high scores in the meritocracy and social dominance orientation. Against our expectation, the manipulation of the favourable versus unfavourable situation of the ingroup did not have a significant influence. In order of their importance, the variables that showed stronger effects were group identification, followed by meritocracy, social dominance orientation, and world-just beliefs.

Belief in a just world lowers bribery intention

“…Thus, BJW is indicative of a personal contract (Lerner, ), which obliges individuals to behave fairly (cf. Echebarria‐Echabe, ). Previous research has found that individuals holding a strong BJW tend to endorse stronger social responsibility (Bierhoff, ) and obligation for reciprocity (Edlund, Sagarin & Johnson, ), are more likely to help people in need (Bierhoff, Klein & Kramp, ), and achieve their goals by just means than those holding weak BJW (e.g.…”

System‐justifying beliefs and political disaffection

“…Meritocracy beliefs, although conceptually different from JWBs, are closely related. Meritocracy is the dominant legitimizing ideology of Western societies (Augoustinos, Tuffin, & Every, ; Echebarria, ; Gillies, ; Son Hing, Bobocel, & Zanna, ; Tajfel, ; Taylor & Moghaddam, ; Weber, ; Wright, Taylor, & Moghaddam, ). It assumes that social, political, and economic success depend on individual factors such as capacity, ambition, personal strength, and perseverance, rather than social factors such as gender, race, or class.…”