The balance between fairness and discrimination

Abstract

A bstraci Research on intergroup relations by Tafel and others (e.g. Tafel et al., 1971; Billig and Taifel, 1973) has indicated that there are two opposing norms governing intergroup behaviour-a norm for discrimination and a norm for fairness. The behaviour that results from social categorization represents a compromise between these opposing norms. The norm for discrimination is explained in terms of social comparison processes and the need to achieve a positive ingroup identity (Turner, 1975). Along similar lines, another study suggests that discrimination is strongest on the part of the self-perceived underdog in order to assert its independent and individual identity (Branthwaite and Jones, 197.5

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

“…This finding is consistent with previous work that has noted the prominent role of intergroup fairness in intergroup allocation tasks (e.g., Branthwaite et al, 1979;Bornstein et al, 1983;Platow & McClintock, 1990).…”

“…A competitive favoritism strategy enabled their group to do better than the out-group in terms of its point allocations (i.e., social competition), and a compensatory favoritism strategy enabled their group to do as well as the out-group in terms of its allocations (i.e., intergroup fairness). This co-existence between the strategies of social competition and intergroup fairness has been noted in studies of equal status groups (e.g., Branthwaite et al, 1979). However, the present research provides the first demonstration that it plays a role in explaining why low status groups engage in in-group favoritism.…”

“…In contrast, if low status groups' in-group favoritism is intended to make the in-group equal to the outgroup (i.e., intergroup fairness), then group members should prefer compensatory choices. Finally, it is possible that low status groups' in-group favoritism reflects a balance between social competition and intergroup fairness (e.g., Branthwaite et al, 1979;Singh et al, 1998), in which case group members should choose both competitive and compensatory choices.We conducted two studies to test our predictions. In the first study, we designed an intergroup status hierarchy that was relatively illegitimate.…”

“…In this case, in-group favoritism is used to achieve intergroup fairness rather than positive distinctiveness for the in-group. This goal of intergroup fairness may be explained in terms of a socially desirable norm (Branthwaite et al, 1979;Singh, Choo, & Poh, 1998), a hierarchy-attenuating ideology (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994), and/or an interpersonal social value orientation (Platow, McClintock, & Liebrand, 1990). In summary, it is possible that low status groups' in-group favoritism serves two functions.…”

Relative Deprivation, Attitude Contrast Projection, and Opinion Certainty

“…However, the downside of such an action is that it can provoke extreme reactions by disadvantaged group members. A third, middle ground is to acknowledge intergroup inequities, but also to downplay their signifi cance (Branthwaite, Doyle, & Lightbown, 1979;Spears & Manstead, 1989;van Knippenberg & van Oers, 1984). This is a pragmatic strategy when intergroup inequities are undeniable, but the advantaged group is absolutely secure in its privileged role (Sachdev & Bourhis, 1985).…”