Intergroup differentiation in Social Context: Identity needs versus Audience constraints

In this paper we investigate intergroup differentiation in different social contexts. Although low group status motivates group members to display biases favoring the in-group, the awareness that others perceive their group as having low-status may prevent them from openly claiming in-group superiority. The interplay between these two considerations may account for inconsistency in findings in the literature regarding displays of in-group favoritism in lower-status-groups. In two experiments we investigate whether people rate their group differently (1) in private and in public situations, (2) in intragroup and in intergroup contexts, and (3) when their strength of in-group identification differs. Results show that members of lower-status groups are more likely to acknowledge in-group inferiority in public than in private situations. Furthermore, strength of identification affects the relative importance of different audiences: High identifiers adapt their responses in an intragroup situation, while low identifiers are more sensitive to the audience in an intergroup context.

[1]  N. Ellemers,et al.  Group commitment and individual effort in experimental and organizational contexts. , 1999 .

[2]  P. Devine,et al.  Internal and external motivation to respond without prejudice , 1998 .

[3]  John C. Turner,et al.  Context‐dependent variation in social stereotyping 2: The relationship between frame of reference, self‐categorization and accentuation , 1992 .

[4]  M. Hogg,et al.  Social identity theory: Constructive and critical advances. , 1991 .

[5]  N. Ellemers,et al.  The effects of group membership and social context on information organization , 1997 .

[6]  Naomi Ellemers,et al.  Identity needs versus social opportunities : The use of group-level and individual-level identity management strategies , 1997 .

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

[8]  Mark Levine,et al.  On the consequences of deindividuation manipulations for the strategic communication of self: Identifiability and the presentation of social identity. , 1994 .

[9]  M. Hogg,et al.  Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. , 1989 .

[10]  H. Schreiber,et al.  Better or just different? Positive social identity by discrimination against, or by differentiation from outgroups , 1983 .

[11]  H. Wilke,et al.  Perceptions of collégiens and apprentis re-analyzed , 1979 .

[12]  Brian Mullen,et al.  Ingroup bias as a function of salience, relevance, and status: An integration , 1992 .

[13]  J. Crocker,et al.  Collective self-esteem and ingroup bias. , 1990 .

[14]  Miles Hewstone,et al.  The ‘ultimate attribution error’? A review of the literature on intergroup causal attribution , 1990 .

[15]  Thomas F. Pettigrew,et al.  The Ultimate Attribution Error: Extending Allport's Cognitive Analysis of Prejudice , 1979 .

[16]  J. Crocker,et al.  A Collective Self-Esteem Scale: Self-Evaluation of One's Social Identity , 1992 .

[17]  S. Ng.  Equity, Intergroup bias and Interpersonal bias in Reward allocation , 1986 .

[18]  R. Spears,et al.  The self-esteem hypothesis revisited: Differentiation and the disaffected , 1997 .

[19]  B. Simon,et al.  Better or different? III. The impact of importance of comparison dimension and relative in-group size upon intergroup discrimination. , 1989 .

[20]  Naomi Ellemers,et al.  Group commitment as a moderator of attributional and behavioural responses to power use , 1998 .

[21]  A. Mummendey,et al.  ‘Different‘ just means ‘better’: Some obvious and some hidden pathways to in‐group favouritism , 1984 .

[22]  Bertjan Doosje,et al.  Sticking Together or Falling Apart: In-Group Identification as a Psychological Determinant of Group Commitment Versus Individual Mobility , 1997 .

[23]  N. Ellemers,et al.  Commitment and strategic responses to social context. , 1999 .

[24]  Naomi Ellemers,et al.  Self-Stereotyping in the Face of Threats to Group Status and Distinctiveness: The Role of Group Identification , 1997 .

[25]  John C. Turner,et al.  Stereotyping and Social Reality , 1994 .

[26]  R. Spears,et al.  De‐individuation and group polarization in computer‐mediated communication , 1990 .

[27]  Gérard Lemaine.  Social differentiation and social originality , 1974 .

[28]  A. Knippenberg,et al.  Social identity and equity concerns in intergroup perceptions , 1984 .

[29]  E. Goffman.  The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life , 1959 .

[30]  Naomi Ellemers,et al.  PERCEIVED INTRAGROUP VARIABILITY AS A FUNCTION OF GROUP STATUS AND IDENTIFICATION , 1995 .

[31]  T. Postmes,et al.  A Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Phenomena , 1995 .

[32]  A. Manstead,et al.  THE SOCIAL-CONTEXT OF STEREOTYPING AND DIFFERENTIATION , 1989 .

[33]  John C. Turner,et al.  Context‐dependent variation in social stereotyping 3: Extremism as a self‐categorical basis for polarized judgement , 1995 .

[34]  H. Tajfel.  Social identity and intergroup behaviour , 1974 .

[35]  N. Ellemers,et al.  Social Identity and Intergroup Differentiation Processes , 1990 .

[36]  Mark Levine,et al.  Deindividuation, power relations between groups and the expression of social identity: The effects of visibility to the out‐group , 1994 .

[37]  N. Ellemers,et al.  Bias in Intergroup Perceptions: Balancing Group Identity with Social Reality , 1997 .

[38]  N. Ellemers.  The Influence of Socio-structural Variables on Identity Management Strategies , 1993 .