Status differences and in-group bias: A meta-analytic examination of the effects of status stability, status legitimacy, and group permeability.

Abstract

This work examines the moderating effects of status stability, legitimacy, and group permeability on in-group bias among high- and low-status groups. These effects were examined separately for evaluative measures that were relevant as well as irrelevant to the salient status distinctions. The results support social identity theory and show that high-status groups are more biased. The meta-analysis reveals that perceived status stability, legitimacy, and permeability moderate the effects of group status. Also, these variables interacted in their influences on the effect of group status on in-group bias, but this was only true for irrelevant evaluative dimensions. When status was unstable and perceived as illegitimate, low-status groups and high-status groups were equally biased when group boundaries were impermeable, compared with when they were permeable. Implications for social identity theory as well as for intergroup attitudes are discussed.

Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is! Explaining Collective Action Tendencies Through Group-Based Anger and Group Efficacy.

“…The social identity approach, through its contrast with interdependence and realistic conflict theories, might appear to downplay instrumental explanations, although the focus on social change strategies and beliefs arguably involves instrumental aspects (Tajfel, 1978; see also Scheepers, Spears, Doosje, & Manstead, 2002). Consistent with this, SIT suggests that collective action among the disadvantaged is most likely when group members perceive their disadvantage as "unstable," implying chances of social change (e.g., Bettencourt et al, 2001;Doosje, Spears, & Ellemers, 2002;Ellemers, van Knippenberg, & Wilke, 1990). To some degree, perceiving collective disadvantage as unstable implies a belief that the group is able to address their collective disadvantage through collective effort (e.g., Mummendey et al, 1999; see also Tajfel & Turner, 1979).…”

Group virtue: The importance of morality (vs. competence and sociability) in the positive evaluation of in-groups.

“…More specifically, in the social identity tradition, the sense of competence thought to follow from an in-group's intellectual or economic success is presumed to enable both the positive evaluation of the in-group (i.e., "in-group favoritism") and the negative evaluation of a less successful out-group (i.e., "out-group derogation"). As such, in-group competence is widely considered "status-defining" -the basis of a status distinction that favors the in-group over an out-group (for reviews, see Bettencourt et al, 2001;Spears et al, 2001).…”

“…Although it is rarely made explicit, most work within this tradition appears to presume that "status-defining" domains are those related to competence. Thus, it is argued that positive evaluation is best achieved through an inter-group comparison that establishes an in-group as more successful than an out-group in economic, academic, or other domains suggestive of competence (for reviews, see Bettencourt et al, 2001;Ellemers et al, 1999;Spears et al, 2001). A functionalist view of stereotypes suggests something similar.…”

“…Thus, at a theoretical level, the social identity tradition allows for morality to be the most important characteristic in the positive evaluation of in-groups. However, most empirical work within the social identity tradition has examined competence as the basis of positive in-group evaluation (for reviews, see Bettencourt, Dorr, Charlton, & Hume, 2001;Ellemers, 1993;Spears et al, 2001). Thus, research in the social identity tradition tends to share the functionalist approach in other work on competence and sociability in group evaluation.…”

The Effects of Negative Group Primes

“…They demonstrate a limited acceptance of the superiority of the dominant group (Bettencourt et al 2001). However, I hypothesize that less powerful group members are more likely to be affected by negative primes about their own groups in ways, which increase their support for policies that past literature suggests their group supports (H4).…”