BEY chapters Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination oe Td eee eperrret at Toy psoas ingroup favoritism ‘The tendency to diseriminats in favor of ingroups over outgroup social identity theory ‘The theory that people favor ingroups over outgroups in order 10 enhance their self-esteem, I Social Identity Theory ‘Why are people so sensitive about the status and integrity of their ingroups relative to rival outgroups, even when personal interests are not at stake? Could it be that personal interests realy are at stake but that these interests are more subtle and psy chological than a simple competition for valuable resources? Ifso, could that explain ‘why people all over the world believe that their own nation, culture, language, and religion are better and more deserv than others? ‘These questions were first raised in a study of high school boys in Bristol, England, conducted by Henri Tajfel and his colleagues (1971). The boys were shown a series of dotted slides, and their task was to estimate the number of dots on each. The slides were presented in rapid-fire sue cession so the dots could not be counted. Later, the experi ‘menter told the participants that some people are chronic ‘overestimators” and that others are “underestimators.” As part of a second, entirely separate task, participants were divided into two groups. They were told that for the sake ‘oup consisted of overestimators and the other ofunderestimators, and participants knew which group they were in. (In fact, they were divided randomly.) Participants were then told to allacate points to other par- ticipants that could be cashed in for money, ‘This procedure was designed to create minimal groups in which people are cat ‘egorized on the basis of trivial, minimally important similarities. Tajfel’s overesti mators and underestimators were not long-term rivals, did not have a history of antagonism, were not frustrated, did not compete for a limited resource, and were not Still, participants consistently allocated more points to members of their own group than to members of the other group. This pattern of discrimination, called ingroup favoritism, has been found in studies performed is ‘many countries and using a variety of different measures (Capozza & Brown, 2000: Scheepers et al, 2006), To explain ingroup favoritism, Tajfel (1982) and John Turner (1987) proposed ‘social identity theory. According to this theory, which is illustrated in > Figure 5:9, ‘each of us strives to enhance our self-esteem, which has two components: (1) a per sonal identity; and (2) various collective or social identities that are based on the groups to which we belong. In other words, people can baost their self-esteem through their own personal achievements or through alfiiation with suecessful groups. What's nice about the need for social identity is that it leads us to derive pride from our con nections with others even if we don't receive any direct benefits from these others (Gagnon & Bourhis, 1996). What's sad, however it tle them" in order to feel secure about “us.” Religious fervor, racial and ethnic conceit, and aggressive nationalism may all fulfill this more negative side of our social identity. Even gossiping can play this role; Jennifer Bosson and others (2006) found that when people shared negative attitudes about a third party, they felt closer to each other. that we often feel the need to b Basic Predictions Two basic predictions arose from social identity theory (2) Threats to one's self-esteem heighten the need for ingroup favoritism, and (2) expressions of ingroup favoritism enhance one’s self-esteem. Research generally supports these predictions (Baray et al, 2009; Ellemers et al. 2003: Postmes & Jetten, 2006; Seheepers, 2009; Smurda et al, 2006).Causes ofthe Problem: Intergroup and Motivational Factors Steven Fein and Steven Spencer (1997) proposed that threats to one's self-esteem can lead individuals to-use available nogative stereotypes to derogate members of ste- reotyped groups, and that by derogating others they can feel better about themselves. In ‘one study, for example, Fein and Spencer gave participants positive or negative feedback about their performance on atest of social and verbal sklls—feedback that temporarily bolstered or threatened their self-esteem. These participants then took partin what was, supposedly a second experiment in which they evaluated a job applicant. All partici- pants received a photograph of a young woman, her résumé, and a videotape of job interview. Half the participants were given information that suggested that the woman (named Julie Goldberg) was Jewish. The other half was given information that suggested that the woman (named Maria D'Agostino) was not Jewish. On the campus where the study was held, there was a popular negative stereotype of the “Jewish American Prin- cess" that often targeted upper-middle-class Jewish women from the New York area. [As predicted, there were two important results (see P Figure 5.10) First, among participants whose self-esteem had been lowered by negative feedback, they rated the ‘woman more negatively if she seemed to be Jewish than if she did not, even though the pictures and credentials of the two women were the same. Second, participants who had received negative feedback and were given an opportunity to belittle the Jewish woman later exhibited a post-experiment increase in self-esteem—the more negatively they evaluated the Jewish woman, the better these participants felt about themselves. In sum, the results of this experiment suggests that a blow to one’s self- image evokes prejudice and the expression of prejudice helps restore self-image. Situational and Individual Differences Recent work has extended social identity theory by making more specific distinctions among: types of esteem-relevant threats (such as whether the threat is to the group's status or to the individual’ role withina Chapter Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination Nor Jewish Jewish the group). types of groups (such as whether a group has high or low status in a cul- ture), and types of ingroup members (such as whether the members are strongly oF ‘weakly identified with their group) (Platow et al, 2005; Schepers & Ellemers, 2005: Schmitt et al, 2006: Wann & Grieve, 2005). Greater ingroup identification, for exam- ple, has been found across many studies to be associated with stronger social identity ‘effects. In one ofthe early demonstrations of this point, Nyla Branscombe and Daniel ‘Wann (1994) found that U.S students who identified strongly with the group “Ameri- ‘cans were especially likely to derogate outgroups in response to a threat to America's status. Manfred Schmitt and Juergen Maes (202) found that the more East Germans identified with East Germany, the more they showed increased ingroup bias when ‘making comparisons with West Germany during the German unification process—an effect heightened by increased feelings of relative deprivation during unification. i Culture and Social Identity Individuals’ social identities are clearly important to people across cultures. Collectiv- ists are more likely than individualists to value their connectedness and interdepen- ‘dence with the people and groups around them, and their personal identities are tied ‘closely with their social identities. However, according to a number of researchers,Causes ofthe Problem: Intergroup and Motivational Factors BES people from collectivist cultures are less likely than people from individualist cultures to show biases favoring their ingroups in order to boost their self-esteem (Heine, 2005: Lehman et al. 2004: Sniblae etal. 2008; Yuki, 2003). It isn’t the cease that collectivists do not favor their ingroup at all. Rather, it’s that they are not as compelled to enhance their ingroup as a way of enhancing their own self-esteem. For example, Keni [Nakashima and others (2008) showed that when participants’ self-esteem was threatened, indi- viduals with independent selfconstruals showed more ingroup favoritism, whereas individuals with interdependent self-construals did not. Although they tend not to be driven by self esteem desires collectivists do show some biases favoring their ingroups—indeed, being oriented strongly toward one’s ingroup may be consid cred a highly desired and valued way of being (Capozza et al. 2000; Chen et al, 2002: Rule & Sosis, 2006). And although collectivists may be less likely to overtly exaggerate the strengths of ae aa their ingroups, some research indicates that they draw sharper distinctions between [Sah OesMuamenertenrer eis {ingroup and outgroup members than individualists do (Gudlykunst & Bond, 1997). hae taeaieenaes Mf Motives Concerning Intergroup Dominance and Status Some people are especially motivated to preserve inequities between groups of people Individuals in groups that benefit from advantages that other groups do not have may be motivated to justify and protect those advantages. For example, a grow: ing body of research has examined the social dominance orientation: a desire to see one's ingroups as dominant over other groups and a willingness to adopt cultural values that facilitate the oppression of other groups. Such an orientation would be illustrated when individuals endorse sentiments such as “Some groups of people are simply inferior to other groups.” and I certain groups stayed in their place, we would have fewer problems.” A person with a social dominance orientation would also likely disagree with statements such as “Group equality should be our ideal” Research in ‘numerous countries throughout the world has found that ingroup identification and ‘outgroup derogation can be especially strong among people with a social dominance ‘orientation (Duckitt & Sibley, 2009; Levin et al, 2009; Sidanius etal, 2007). Social dominance orientations promote self-interest. But some ideologies support ‘social structure that may actually oppose one's self interest. depending on the status ‘of one's groups. John Jost and his colleagues (2009a, 2009b) have focused on what they call system justification processes that endorse and legitimize existing social arrange ‘ments. System-justifying beliefs protect the status quo. Groups with power, of course, social dominance orientation ‘may promote the status quo to preserve their own advantaged position. But although desire to see one's ingroup as some disadvantaged groups might be able to improve their circumstances fthey were dominant over ather groups and to challenge an economic or political system, members of disadvantaged groups with _2willngness to adopt cultural values that facilitate oppression ‘system justification orientation think thatthe system is far and just, and they may Sher ether groupe admire and even show outgroup favoritism to outgroups that thrive in this system,