Stretching the boundaries: strategic perceptions of intragroup variability

Abstract

We hypothesised that people would strategically alter their perceived intragroup variability on ingroup-threatening traits in order to maintain positive perceptions of their self and their ingroup. Speci®cally, we predicted that people would perceive (1) greater relative outgroup homogeneity and (2) greater general intragroup variability on ingroup negative and outgroup positive traits. We con®rmed the outgroup homogeneity prediction in a minimal group experiment (N 80) and a gender group experiment (N 164). In a second gender group experiment (N 137), we found that ingroup size moderated this effect: only minority group members showed the predicted pattern of outgroup homogeneity. Evidence for the general intragroup variability prediction was less conclusive. We discuss the results in terms of variability strategies. Copyright # 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.The outgroup homogeneity effect (OH) is the tendency to perceive out-group members as being less variable than in-group members (for reviews, see Devos, Comby & Deschamps, 1996;Mullen & Hu, 1989;Ostrom & Sedikides, 1992;Voci, 2000). Researchers have usually found OH to be quite a small effect (Mullen & Hu, 1989;Park & Judd, 1990), and under some circumstances it is reversed to become an ingroup homogeneity effect (IH; Simon, 1992).Recently, researchers have broadened their investigations to examine perceived intragroup variability in general, rather than focusing on ingroup-outgroup differences per se (for a review, see Doosje, Spears, Ellemers & Koomen, 1999). A key assumption underlying this line of research is that people change their perceived intragroup variability in a strategic manner in order to maintain positive perceptions of their self and their ingroup during ingroup-threatening comparisons (e.g. Doosje, Spears & Koomen, 1995b). Following Doosje et al., we will describe such changes as variability strategies.In the present research, we aimed to integrate work on OH and IH with work on general perceived intragroup variability. In particular, we were interested in testing whether a strategy-based explanation could be used to predict instances of OH and IH. VARIABILITY STRATEGIES AS A FUNCTION OF TRAIT TYPEWe operationalised ingroup threat by systematically varying the type of traits along which judgements of intragroup variability were made. Traits can vary in terms of their stereotypicality and valence. In terms of stereotypicality, traits can be either stereotypical of the ingroup ± ingroup traits ± or stereotypical of the outgroup ± outgroup traits. In terms of valence, traits can be either socially desirable ± positive traits ± or socially undesirable ± negative traits. The dimensions of stereotypicality and valence can be crossed orthogonally to form four different types of trait: ingroup positive, ingroup negative, outgroup positive and outgroup negative.Ingroup positive and outgroup negative traits do not pose a threat to the ingroup because they provide favourable intergroup comparisons. In contrast, ingroup negative and outgroup pos...

Towards a Clearer Understanding of Social Identity Theory’s Self-Esteem Hypothesis

“…Hence, consistent with the dynamic model of collective self-esteem, group members were only motivated to protect the in-group from out-group intrusions when the in-group had a positive valence and not when it had a negative valence. Further research demonstrates that threatened group members change their perceived intragroup variability strategically in order to maintain positive self-and group perceptions (Doosje, Spears, & Koomen, 1995 ;Rubin, Hewstone, & Voci, 2001 ; for a review, see Rubin & Badea, 2012 ).…”

When is computer-mediated intergroup contact most promising? Examining the effect of out-group members' anonymity on prejudice

“…The authors speculated that sharing outgroup members' nationality but no individuating information did not make it possible to establish a feeling of familiarity. Instead, strong out-group stereotypes might have been activated and perceived out-group variability may have been reduced (Judd & Park, 1988;Rubin, Hewstone, & Voci, 2001), to a point where stereotype-disconfirming behavior could not improve the established perceptions (Alvídrez et al, 2015).…”

“…The authors speculated that sharing outgroup members' nationality but no individuating information did not make it possible to establish a feeling of familiarity. Instead, strong out-group stereotypes might have been activated and perceived out-group variability may have been reduced (Judd & Park, 1988;Rubin, Hewstone, & Voci, 2001), to a point where stereotype-disconfirming behavior could not improve the established perceptions (Alvídrez et al, 2015).In addition, it has been found that anonymity strengthens, rather than removes, group boundaries (Reicher, Spears, & Postmes, 1995). Students from the Netherlands and England interacted via synchronous text-chat over three weeks, either sharing photos and their first name or displaying only their initials and university affiliation .…”

Numerical representation and cross-cut role assignments: Majority members’ responses under cooperative interaction

“…Simon and Pettigrew (1990) deWne relative ingroup homogeneity as the accentuation of perceived ingroup homogeneity relative to outgroup homogeneity, and they propose that perception of greater relative ingroup homogeneity is a means of enhancing positive group identity. Consistent with this theorizing, research shows that greater perceptions of relative ingroup homogeneity are associated with higher levels of ingroup bias (Simon, Mlicki, Johnston, & Caetano, 1990; see also Rubin, Hewstone, & Voci, 2001). Presumably, situations that reduce the salience of the majority identity may increase perceptions of relative ingroup homogeneity, which are otherwise low.…”