Minimal majorities and minorities

Sachdev, Itesh; Bourhis, Richard Y.

doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420140104

Cited by 110 publications

(98 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous research has demonstrated that members of low status groups sometimes show out-group favoritism (e.g., Riechl, 1997;Sachdev & Bourhis, 1987, 1991Turner & Brown, 1978) and sometimes show in-group favoritism (e.g., Branthwaite, Doyle, & Lightbown, 1979;Commins & Lockwood, 1979b;Klein & Azzi, 2001;Mummendey et al, 1992;Reichl, 1997;Sachdev & Bourhis, 1984;Scheepers, Spears, Doosje, & Manstead, 2006;Turner & Brown, 1978; van Knippenberg, 1984; for reviews, see Bettencourt, Charlton, Dorr, & Hume, 2001;Brewer, 1979;Mullen, Brown, & Smith, 1992). Key moderators of these in-group and out-group favoritism effects are the stability and legitimacy of the intergroup status hierarchy (Tajfel & Turner, 1979).…”

Section: Low Status Groups' In-group Favoritismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Low status groups show in-group favoritism to compensate for their low status and compete for higher status

Rubin

Badea

Jetten

2014

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present research investigated the intergroup allocation behavior of members of low status groups. In two studies where status relations were either relatively illegitimate (Study 1, N = 139) or legitimate (Study 2, N = 114), undergraduate students completed a minimal group resource allocation task that took into account the intergroup status hierarchy. In both studies, members of low status groups showed two forms of in-group favoritism. They selected resource allocation choices that (a) compensated for their low status and led to intergroup fairness (compensatory favoritism) and (b) competed with the out-group for status and led to positive distinctiveness for the in-group (competitive favoritism). These results suggest that members of low status groups use in-group favoritism to make their group (a) as good as the high status out-group and (b) better than the high status out-group. The findings support the idea that in-group favoritism can serve different functions.KEYWORDS: in-group favoritism; intergroup fairness; low status groups; social identity theory; minimal group. LOW STATUS GROUPS' IN-GROUP FAVORITISM 3Low Status Groups Show In-Group Favoritism to Compensate for their Low Status and to Compete for Higher Status Group status refers to the relative position of a group on an evaluative dimension based on intergroup comparisons with other relevant social groups (e.g., Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Previous research has demonstrated that members of low status groups sometimes show out-group favoritism (e.g., Riechl, 1997;Sachdev & Bourhis, 1987, 1991Turner & Brown, 1978) and sometimes show in-group favoritism (e.g., Branthwaite, Doyle, & Lightbown, 1979;Commins & Lockwood, 1979b;Klein & Azzi, 2001;Mummendey et al., 1992;Reichl, 1997;Sachdev & Bourhis, 1984;Scheepers, Spears, Doosje, & Manstead, 2006;Turner & Brown, 1978; van Knippenberg, 1984; for reviews, see Bettencourt, Charlton, Dorr, & Hume, 2001;Brewer, 1979;Mullen, Brown, & Smith, 1992). Key moderators of these in-group and out-group favoritism effects are the stability and legitimacy of the intergroup status hierarchy (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). When status relations are perceived to be unstable and illegitimate, members of low status groups tend to show in-group favoritism (e.g., Bettencourt et al., 2001). In contrast, when status relations are perceived to be stable and legitimate, members of low status groups tend to show out-group favoritism, especially on statusrelevant dimensions (Bettencourt et al., 2001;Mullen et al., 1992).Low status groups' out-group favoritism has generated considerable debate and discussion in the literature because it represents a theoretically-important exception to the more common in-group favoritism effect Rubin & Hewstone, 2004). Following social identity theory, Rubin and Hewstone (2004) conceptualize this low status group out-group favoritism as consensual discrimination because it reflects consensual perceptions of intergroup status that are held by members of both the high and low status groups. In contrast...

show abstract

Section: Low Status Groups' In-group Favoritismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Low status groups show in-group favoritism to compensate for their low status and compete for higher status

Rubin

Badea

Jetten

2014

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Generosity is measured by the amount of effort exerted when the initial transfer is zero. 32 They also mirror, by the way, the hypothetically "wealthier" subjects outlined above. Additionally, the current experiment raises many questions for future research.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 79%

“…That is to say, players in a bad mood mirror high status subjects in the present experiment; and players in a good mood mirror low status subjects. 32 Thus, mood differences are likely to have worked against the reciprocity patterns in the current paper rather than providing an alternative explanation for them.…”

Section: Ruling Out Wealth Effects and Mood Effectsmentioning

confidence: 82%

“…Additionally, the introduction of an audience of own-group or other-group members may implicate preferences for conformity (e.g., Asch 1956) since the composition of the audience determined which player's preferences were aligned with the majority of those present. In fact, such numerical majority/minority effects have a long history in the social identity literature beginning with Sachdev and Bourhis (1984). By way of contrast, the current experiment did not incorporate a group component to individuals' earnings from game-play in order to keep incentives as transparent as possible; and majority/minority effects were ameliorated by ensuring that both social identities were of equal size and that each social identity had the same number of subjects present in each session.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Trust, Truth, Status and Identity: An Experimental Inquiry

Butler

2014

The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:In an experiment involving a standard trust game and a costless signalling game, it is demonstrated that economically relevant norm-based behaviors (trust, reciprocity and truth-telling) vary with social identity.The experimental procedure induced two trivial social identities. In one version, a status difference was induced. The results permitted a succinct description of identity effects: subjects held own-group members to a higher standard; and high status subjects held everyone, including themselves, to a higher standard. To illustrate the "high status/high standards" phenomenon, subjects' "standards" were estimated from a simple identity model for a subset of the data. * This paper comprises a portion of my doctoral dissertation, completed at the University of California, Berkeley. This version is as of October 2008. I owe a great debt of gratitude to

show abstract

“…It has been argued that this is why, in such circumstances, members of powerless minorities are more likely than members of powerful majorities to view themselves in terms of their collective self (Badea, Jetten, Czukor, & Askevis-Leherpeux, 2010;Mullen, 1991;Simon, Pantaleo, & Mummendey, 1995) and why they identify more strongly with their group in such situations (Sachdev & Bourhis, 1984;Simon & Brown, 1987).…”

Section: Anomie and Tribalismmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Psychology of Anomie

Teymoori¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In sociology, anomie refers to a state of society characterized by chaos, the eroding of social regulation and moral values. Drawing upon recent developments in psychology, this thesis presents an analysis of anomie as a psychological construct. More specifically, this thesis aims to develop: a) a psychological conceptualization of anomie, b) a psycho-social analysis of the processes through which anomie leads to psychological outcomes, c) a social psychological conceptualization of individuals' responses to a high anomie contexts, d) a valid and reliable scale to measure anomie, and e) a cross-cultural examination of predictions that are derived from our conceptual framework of anomie.First, we present a historical overview of theoretical and empirical work on anomie (Chapter 2). The historical overview helps us to identify the contentious areas and longstanding problems in anomie literature requiring further development. We extend the theorizing on anomie by developing a psychological conceptualization of anomie (Chapter 3). As a psychological construct, we define anomie as the collective subjective perception about the state of society encompassing two conditions: the breakdown of social fabric (i.e., lack of trust and moral decline) and the breakdown in leadership (i.e., lack of legitimacy and effectiveness). This third chapter also examines individuals' responses to anomie. This is important to overcome the limitations of existing literature which typically conflates anomie with its outcomes. We argue that the primary psychological effect of anomie is the failure to satisfy four fundamental human needs including a need for a meaningful life, a need for self-esteem, a need to belong, and a need to have a sense of personal and collective control.We argue that there are two key responses to an anomic situation: a contraction of the personal self and a contraction of the social self. Contraction of personal self describes the detrimental consequences of anomie for personal well-being and the way it propels individuals to adopt control-restoring strategies such as authoritarianism. Contraction of social self refers to withdrawal from, and disidentification with, the superordinate group, thereby influencing the way individuals engage and interact with their social world. We argue that contraction of social self manifests itself as tribalism, a response whereby individuals withdraw from superordinate groups (trust becomes bounded) and turn to smaller groups on which they project familial ties.In order to enable an empirical examination of the conceptual framework of the psychology of anomie, we first develop a new measure, Perception of Anomie Scale (PAS, see Chapter 4). We operationalize anomie as a perception of the state of society encompassing two dimensions: perceived breakdown of social fabric and perceived breakdown of leadership. We present the evidence for the validity of the newly developed scale of PAS across six studies. Studies 1a (N = 199, first year psychology students from Australia) and 1b...

show abstract

Minimal majorities and minorities

Cited by 110 publications

References 24 publications

Low status groups show in-group favoritism to compensate for their low status and compete for higher status

Low status groups show in-group favoritism to compensate for their low status and compete for higher status

Trust, Truth, Status and Identity: An Experimental Inquiry

The Psychology of Anomie

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About