Contesting the Meaning of Intergroup Disadvantage: Towards a Psychology of Resistance

Abstract

A prevailing view in psychology is that intergroup disadvantage poses a serious threat to psychological well‐being. Lower self‐esteem and out‐group favoritism are two of the most examined forms of psychological damage thought to follow from intergroup disadvantage. We review theory and research on lower self‐esteem and out‐group favoritism with close attention to the nature of the evidence suggesting that intergroup disadvantage is detrimental psychologically. We argue that this evidence is not as strong or unambiguous as is widely believed. This has likely led to an underestimation of psychological resistance to disadvantage—that middle ground between the extremes of surviving at subsistence levels of psychological well‐being and confronting disadvantage. We propose that greater attention to the psychological meaning that the disadvantaged give their position enables a more accurate assessment of the diverse forms of psychological resistance to intergroup disadvantage.

Extending the Queen Bee Effect: How Hindustani Workers Cope with Disadvantage by Distancing the Self from the Group

“…In addition to self‐group distancing responses, we also found that when faced with group‐based discrimination, some group members are motivated to work to improve the image of their group: Rather than distancing themselves from the group, highly identified Hindustanis showed social creativity by emphasizing their group's positive distinctiveness from Dutch employees on a competence dimension on which Hindustanis are positively stereotyped (i.e., conscientiousness). By focusing on the positive ingroup stereotype, this socially creative coping strategy serves to improve the image of the group as a whole, instead of trying to individually escape the negative group stereotype (Derks et al., ; Leach & Livingstone, ).…”

“…In the control condition, we did not expect differences between low and high identifiers. By contrast, we anticipated high (but not low) identifiers to respond to identity threat through collective coping strategies, in this case by measuring “social creativity.” Previous work has revealed that highly identified group members do not necessarily promote their group by comparing it with the outgroup on status‐defining dimensions like salary or competence, but by “creatively” emphasizing the group's positive distinctiveness on other positive dimensions (e.g., women emphasizing that they are more trustworthy than men; Derks, Van Laar, & Ellemers, ; Leach & Livingstone, ).…”

Where did inaction go? Towards a broader and more refined perspective on collective actions

“…Such groundwork, in response to a structural reality in which movement is impossible, could be the formation of positive perceptions of one's ingroup as opposed to the outgroup (Stott & Drury, ). Indeed, as Leach and Livingstone () suggest, there may be more responses to disadvantage beyond either suffering disadvantage or fighting it.…”

Achieving Social Change: A Matter of All for One?

“…This points to the question regarding the extent to which individuals who adopt the previously discussed individual strategies to cope with disadvantage (e.g., individual mobility, social creativity, prejudice confrontation) also intend to improve the status of the group. Interestingly, Leach and Livingstone () challenge us to think outside the box and reconsider how strategies formerly seen as reflective of acceptance of inferiority of one's low status (e.g., outgroup favoritism, endorsing stereotypes of one's group) may in fact signal psychological resistance to the status quo. For example, when the disadvantaged endorse stereotypes of their low status group, such as viewing themselves as especially fair, trustworthy, or communal, this may actually be an assertion of their superior morality.…”

“…In line with these recent developments, we would like to contribute in developing a more in‐depth understanding of what constitutes resistance and ultimately, social change. Our special issue tries to do so by, for example, challenging us to reconsider, as evidence of resistance, strategies traditionally considered as indicative of acceptance disadvantage (Leach & Livingstone, ), considering how alternative strategies such as female empowerment in developing countries may achieve social change (Hansen, ) or discussing existent approaches to and potential definitions of social change (Stroebe et al., ).…”