The present research examines the impact of ingroup favoritism on self-esteem. According to the self-esteem hypothesis (Abrams & Hogg, 1988), favoring the ingroup over an outgroup should lead to higher self-esteem. However, empirical tests of this hypothesis have revealed mixed results. In light of the heterogeneity of these findings, we investigate the moderating role of ingroup norms regarding intergroup discrimination. According to this normative perspective, we hypothesize that believing one has favored the ingroup increases personal self-esteem to the extent that such behavior is congruent with the ingroup norm. Three studies showed a positive impact of perceived ingroup favoritism (vs. intergroup fairness) on personal self-esteem when the ingroup norm was pro-discriminatory (Studies 1-3). However, this effect disappeared when the pro-discriminatory ingroup norm was attenuated (Study 1), and was even reversed when the ingroup norm was clearly anti-discriminatory (Studies 2-3). Further, this moderation was primarily observed when the ingroup norms were injunctive (rather than descriptive; Study 2), and among participants who highly value conformity (Study 3). These findings are discussed with regard to the classical understanding of the self-esteem hypothesis.
Past research has shown that a heterogeneous (vs. homogeneous) ingroup identity can lead to more outgroup derogation amongst people high on conservative values (Roccas and Amit, 2011) and group identification (Falomir-Pichastor and Frederic, 2013). In three studies we tested the hypotheses that a heterogeneous ingroup identity leads to greater derogation towards immigrants among nationals' high on RWA, and when immigrants constitute a homogeneous (vs. heterogeneous) outgroup. In all studies we assessed RWA. We manipulated the heterogeneity (vs. homogeneity) of ingroup identity in Studies 1-2 and kept the heterogeneous condition constant in Study 3, we also manipulated outgroup heterogeneity (vs. homogeneity) in Studies 2-3. Finally, outgroup derogation was assessed through two different prejudice scales (Studies 1-2) and an intergroup discrimination scale. Results provided consistent evidence in support of the hypotheses. We discuss the implications of these findings regarding social identity theory and intergroup relations.
Abstract. In the context of nationals’ attitudes toward immigrants, three studies investigated the moderating role of normative context and justification for prejudice on licensing effects. Justification for prejudice was either assessed (Studies 1 and 2) or experimentally induced (Study 3). The normative context (egalitarian vs. discriminatory) and the possibility to obtain (or not) credentials as a nonprejudiced person were manipulated in all studies. A licensing effect (i.e., greater prejudice in the credentials as compared to the no-credentials conditions) was observed only in the egalitarian norm condition when justification for prejudice was high. Thus, credentials appear to provide a way for establishing a normative self-image as nonprejudiced when justification for prejudice is high, which reduces conformity to an egalitarian norm.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.