The impact of differentially valued overlapping categorizations upon the differentiation between positively, negatively, and neutrally evaluated social groups

Abstract

The present study attempted to determine whether the impact of overlapping categorizations upon intergroup differentiation should be attributed to cognitive category differentiation processes or whether motivational social identity processes do also intervene. Experimentally created groups were placed in one of four overlapping categorization conditions: the overlapping category was either absent or it was affectively positive, negative, or neutral. These groups were also differentially evaluated by providing them with positive, negative, or no feedback. Subjects estimated then the performance of the two groups in an experimental task. Thereupon, their self-esteem and their liking of the groups were also measured. The presence of an overlapping category had no impact upon the performance evaluations of positively evaluated groups. Negatively evaluated groups favoured the outgroup but the presence of an overlapping category led also to a reduction of this perceived ingroup inferiority. The groups of the no-feedback condition exhibited ingroup favouritism. The presence of a positive and of a neutral overlapping category reduced this bias but the presence of a negatively evaluated overlapping category strongly enhanced it. The impact of overlapping categories upon the liking measure was less pronounced. Group members' self-esteem was injluenced by the experimentally manipulated factors, but these effects did not really support social identity theory. The theoretical implications of the data are discussed.

Subgroup Relations: A Comparison of Mutual Intergroup Differentiation and Common Ingroup Identity Models of Prejudice Reduction

“…One possible explanation for the latter result is that there is an inherent complexity involved with making categorizations on the basis of two varying criteria (see Brown & Turner, 1979;Hogg & Abrams, 1988;Messick & Mackie, 1989;Vanbeselaere, 1996;Wilder, 1986). In response to this complexity, people may revert to an interpersonal orientation.…”

“…In his conceptualization of the differentiation process, Doise (1978) argues that when two categorizations are crossed, the accentuation of perceived differences between the categories on one dimension will be weakened by a countervailing accentuation of perceived similarities on the shared category dimension. Consistent with this, it has been found that when members of different groups are made aware of shared membership on a second social category, levels of bias are either reduced (Hewstone, Islam, & Judd, 1993;Vanbeselaere, 1991Vanbeselaere, , 1996 or eliminated (Deschamps & Doise, 1978;Diehl, 1990;Vanbeselaere, 1987). 1 The simultaneous activation of superordinate and subordinate categories can be viewed as a special sort of crossed categorization, with the shared category at a more inclusive level of the category hierarchy.…”

Considering Multiple Criteria for Social Categorization Can Reduce Intergroup Bias

“…Deschamps and Doise (1978) suggested that by simultaneously combining two cross-cutting dimensions of social categorization, opposing accentuation and assimilation principles would effectively cancel each other out and reduce intergroup bias. This approach of combining two crosscutting categorizations has met with mixed success in terms of reducing intergroup bias (Brown & Turner, 1979;Crisp, Hewstone, & Rubin, 2001;Deschamps & Doise, 1978;Vanbeselaere, 1987Vanbeselaere, , 1996. The majority of studies produce a pattern of evaluation where any group associated with the ingroup is evaluated positively to some extent but where negative evaluations are still directed toward those people who are in the outgroup according to both categorical criteria (Diehl, 1990;Ensari & Miller, 1998;Hewstone, Islam, & Judd, 1993;Kenworthy, Canales, Weaver, & Miller, 2003;MarcusNewhall, Miller, Holtz, & Brewer, 1993;Urada & Miller, 2000;Vanbeselaere, 1987;see Crisp & Hewstone, 1999;Urban & Miller, 1998, for reviews).…”

Collective self-esteem, personal self-esteem, and collective efficacy in in-group and outgroup evaluations

“…They proposed that in-group bias is simply exhibited in order to assign meaning to the uncertain situation of being categorized as a group member (Lemeyre and Smith, 1985). Despite the fact that cognitive activities, which are involved in the process of categorization (Turner et al, 1987), are of great importance, people's motivations cannot be overlooked in the study of intergroup relations (see also Vanbeselaere, 1996).…”