Members of disadvantaged groups often report that they are less vulnerable to discrimination than is the average member of their group. In two experiments, we examined how the framing of self-ingroup comparisons moderates this phenomenon. In Experiment 1, participants estimated the relative likelihood that either they, compared to the average member of their ingroup, would experience discrimination or that the average member of their ingroup, compared to themselves, would experience discrimination. In Experiment 2, a direct manipulation of self-ingroup similarity was added to this framing manipulation. Across the experiments, the results demonstrated that conditions highlighting differences between the individual and the group led participants to perceive themselves as much less vulnerable to discrimination than their group, relative to conditions highlighting similarities between the individual and the group.
Codol, J.-P. (1987). Comparability and incomparability between oneself and others: Means of differentiation and comparison reference points. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive, 7, 87-105.
2.
Crosby, F. (1982). Relative deprivation and working women. New York: Oxford University Press.
3.
Crosby, F. (1984). The denial of personal discrimination. American Behavioral Scientist, 27, 371-386.
4.
Dion, K. L., & Kawakami, K. (1996). Ethnicity and perceived discrimination in Toronto: Another perspective on the personal∕group discrimination discrepancy. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 28, 203-213.
5.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140.
6.
Hardoin, M., & Codol, J.-P. (1984). Self and other descriptions: The influence of the descriptions order on categories used. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive, 4, 295-302.
7.
Holyoak, K. J., & Gordon, P. C. (1983). Social reference points. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 881-887.
8.
Hoorens, V. (1993). Self-enhancement and superiority biases in social comparison. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 113-139). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
9.
Moghaddam, F. M., Stolkin, A. J., & Hutcheson, L. S. (1997). A generalized personal∕group discrepancy: Testing the domain specificity of a perceived higher effect of event on one’s group than on oneself. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 743-750.
10.
Mussweiler, T. (2001a). Focus of comparison as a determinant of assimilation versus contrast in social comparison. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 38-47.
11.
Mussweiler, T. (2001b). “Seek and ye shall find”: Antecedents of assimilation and contrast in social comparison. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 499-509.
12.
Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (1999). Hypothesis-consistent testing and semantic priming in the anchoring paradigm: A selective accessibility model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 136-164.
13.
Olson, J. M., & Hafer, C. L. (1996). Affect, motivation, and cognition in relative deprivation research. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: The interpersonal context (Vol. 3). New York: Guilford.
14.
Olson, J. M., Roese, N. J., Meen, J., & Robertson, D. J. (1995). The preconditions and consequences of relative deprivation: Two field studies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 944-964.
15.
Postmes, T., Branscombe, N. R., Spears, R., & Young, H. (1999). Comparative processes in personal and group judgments: Resolving the discrepancy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 320-338.
16.
Quinn, K. A., & Olson, J. M. (2001). Judgments of discrimination as a function of group experience and contextual cues. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 33, 38-46.
17.
Quinn, K. A., Roese, N. J., Pennington, G. L., & Olson, J. M. (1999). The personal∕group discrimination discrepancy: The role of informational complexity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1430-1440.
18.
Srull, T. K., & Gaelick, L. (1983). General principles and individual differences in the self as a habitual reference point: An examination of self-other judgments of similarity. Social Cognition, 2, 108-121.
19.
Taylor, D. M., Wong-Rieger, D., McKirnan, D. J., & Bercusson, T. (1982). Social comparison in a group context. Journal of Social Psychology, 117, 257-269.
20.
Taylor, D. M., Wright, S. C., Moghaddam, F. M., & Lalonde, R. N. (1990). The personal∕group discrimination discrepancy: Perceiving my group, but not myself, to be a target for discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 254-262.
21.
Taylor, D. M., Wright, S. C., & Porter, L. E. (1993). Dimensions of perceived discrimination: The personal∕group discrimination discrepancy. In M. P. Zanna & J. M. Olson (Eds.), The psychology of prejudice: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 7). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
22.
Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327-352.
23.
Weinstein, N. D. (1980). Unrealistic optimism about future life events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 806-820.
