The difficulty of recognizing less obvious forms of group-based discrimination

Iyer, Aarti; Jetten, Jolanda; Branscombe, Nyla R.; Jackson, Simon; Youngberg, Courtney

doi:10.1177/1368430214522139

Cited by 8 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They were then asked to indicate the extent to which they would use four legitimacy-related words (rational, justified, sensible, legitimate) and four illegitimacyrelated words (discrimination, differential treatment, prejudice, illegitimate) to describe this intergroup situation (1 = not at all; 7 = very much). The four legitimacy-related words have also been used by Iyer, Jetten, Branscombe, Jackson, and Youngberg (2013).…”

Section: Study 1 Methodsmentioning

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

Self Cite

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: Study 1 Methodsmentioning

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

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Practically, measures of process efficacy may be useful to managers seeking to sensitively assess affect-laden disagreement, or broadly monitor subtler forms of workplace discrimination or bias 38. More generally, one particularly interesting prospect for future research would be the mapping of mean and variance measurement indices to the team conflict literature.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interprofessional simulation training’s impact on process and outcome team efficacy beliefs over time

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionRecent findings suggest that process and outcome-based efficacy beliefs are factorially distinct with differential effects for team performance. This study extends this work by examining process and outcome efficacy (TPE, TOE) of interprofessional (IP) care teams over time.MethodsA within-team, repeated measures design with survey methodology was implemented in a sample of prelicensure IP care teams performing over three consecutive clinical simulation scenarios. TPE and TOE were assessed before and after each performance episode.ResultsInitial baseline results replicated the discriminant validity for TPE and TOE separate factors. Further findings from multilevel modelling indicated significant time effects for TPE convergence, but not TOE convergence. However, a cross-level interaction effect of ‘TOE(Start-Mean)×Time’ strengthened TOE convergence over time. A final follow-up analysis of team agreement’s substantive impact was conducted using independent faculty-observer ratings of teams’ final simulation.ConclusionIndependent sample t-tests of high/low-agreement teams indicated support for agreement’s substantive impact, such that high-agreement teams were rated as significantly better performers than low-agreement teams during the final simulation training. We discuss the substantive merit of methodological within-team agreement as an indicator of team functionality within IP and greater healthcare-simulation trainings at-large.

show abstract

“…We use this view to account for perceptions of fairness across a range of demographic attributes. In doing so, we consider a wide variety of well-studied (e.g., race) and under-studied (e.g., religion, caregiving status; see also Iyer et al, 2014) demographic attributes which affect decision-making, ultimately identifying which attributes are seen as more versus less discriminatory.…”

Section: The Current Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

What counts as discrimination? How principles of merit shape fairness of demographic decisions.

Shakur¹,

Phillips²

2022

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Demographic attributes (e.g., age, disability, race) frequently affect people's decisions. We provide a novel perspective as to why such discrimination persists: Meritocratic principles lead people to perceive some demographic attributes as fair to use, rather than as discriminatory. Specifically, we theorize that meritocracy requires that controllable and relevant inputs determine outcomes; as a result, perceived controllability and relevance affect the degree to which demographic attributes are perceived as fair to use. Moreover, we suggest perceived relevance outweighs controllability, such that even uncontrollable attributes can be perceived as fair criteria if perceived to be outcome relevant. In two qualitative studies, we probed how people think about demographic attributes used in selection (Studies 1a-b). We find that people refer to controllability and relevance dimensions to justify their perceptions. Further, people largely associate uncontrollable, irrelevant attributes with discrimination (race, sex), neglecting attributes they perceive as controllable and/or relevant (disability, caregiving status). Next, three surveys (Studies 2a-c) support our theorizing that perceived relevance impacts fairness perceptions more strongly than perceived controllability. In three experiments (Studies 3a-c), we provide causal evidence that relevance and controllability shape perceived fairness, which in turn affects selection behaviors, including seeking information regarding demographic attributes during hiring. Finally, Study 4 demonstrates downstream consequences: Perceived controllability, relevance, and use of demographic attributes together impact employees' psychological safety and job satisfaction. Overall, we find that principles of merit lead people to believe that even some legally protected demographic attributes are fair to use, allowing discrimination to persist.

show abstract

The difficulty of recognizing less obvious forms of group-based discrimination

Cited by 8 publications

References 33 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

Interprofessional simulation training’s impact on process and outcome team efficacy beliefs over time

What counts as discrimination? How principles of merit shape fairness of demographic decisions.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About