The effects of intergroup similarity and goal interdependence on intergroup attitudes and task performance

Abstract The concept of similarity occupies an important place in several theories of social relations. An experiment was designed to examine the effects of both status and attitudinal similarity under intergroup competition or cooperation. Previous research had indicated that the usual attractive effects of similarity would be most evident in cooperative contexts, while similarity might lead to divergence under competition due to threats to group identity. Two hundred eight school children participated in a 2 × 3 × 2 factorial experiment (nature of Task × outgroup Status × outgroup Attitudes). Results indicated that, contrary to hypothesis, simple attitude similarity led to a general increase in liking for and cooperativeness toward the outgroup, unaffected by goal relations. However, on ratings of group performance, status and attitudinal similarity combined did lead to increased intergroup differentiation, again unaffected by goal relations. Finally, subjects' performances on the experimental task (a verbal and arithmetical reasoning test) were reliably affected by goal relations: highest performance being observed under intergroup cooperation, particularly with same or lower status outgroups, or with outgroups which had different attitudes. It is concluded that the need for positive distinctiveness in intergroup relations may compromise or even reverse the usual relationship between similarity and attraction.

[1]  David W. Johnson,et al.  Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A meta-analysis. , 1981 .

[2]  Ethnocentrism and intergroup attitudes: East African evidence. , 1977 .

[3]  D. Paulhus,et al.  The definition of self: Private and public self-evaluation management strategies. , 1983 .

[4]  M. Goldman,et al.  Intergroup and intragroup competition and cooperation , 1977 .

[5]  Abaineh Workie.  The Relative Productivity of Cooperation and Competition , 1974 .

[6]  Rupert Brown,et al.  Superordinate goals and intergroup conflict , 1983 .

[7]  Roderick M. Kramer,et al.  The Psychology of Intergroup Attitudes and Behavior , 1985 .

[8]  J. Berry.  Multiculturalism and ethnic attitudes in Canada , 1976 .

[9]  A. Mummendey,et al.  Social comparison, similarity and ingroup favouritism-A replication , 1984 .

[10]  Rupert Brown.  The social dimension: The role of similarity in intergroup relations , 1984 .

[11]  A. Tesser,et al.  Self-definition: The impact of the relative performance and similarity of others. , 1980 .

[12]  M. Deutsch.  Equity, Equality, and Need: What Determines Which Value Will Be Used as the Basis of Distributive Justice? , 1975 .

[13]  L. Festinger.  A Theory of Social Comparison Processes , 1954 .

[14]  van Knippenberg,et al.  The social dimension: Intergroup differences in group perceptions , 1984 .

[15]  D. Byrne.  The Attraction Paradigm , 1971 .

[16]  T. Newcomb.  The acquaintance process , 1961 .

[17]  R. J. Brown.  The effects of intergroup similarity and cooperative vs. competitive orientation on intergroup discrimination , 1984 .

[18]  Howard L. Fromkin,et al.  Uniqueness, the human pursuit of difference , 1980 .

[19]  H. Tajfel.  Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. , 1978 .

[20]  H. Tajfel.  Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations , 1982 .

[21]  M. Brewer.  In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. , 1979 .

[22]  Steven W. Duck.  Theory and Practice in Interpersonal Attraction , 1977 .