Groups differ in the prestige they are accorded by outgroups, and individuals differ in how much respect they receive from their group. The authors orthogonally varied both types of social evaluation—intergroup and intragroup—to assess their joint effects on reward allocations and the amount of time donated to work on a group activity that could satisfy either personal or group goals. Respected members of a devalued group were the most inclined to withhold rewards from the outgroup, and they donated the greatest amount of time to improve the ingroup’s image rather than their personal image. Disrespected members of a prestigious group did not favor the ingroup over the outgroup in reward allocations, and they invested in a group activity only if they might improve their personal image by doing so. The authors discuss why intragroup respect is particularly important for devalued group members.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Branscombe, N. R. , Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (1999). The context and content of social identity threat. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social identity: Context, commitment, content (pp. 35-58). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
2.
Branscombe, N. R. , Schmitt, M. T., & Harvey, R. D. (1999). Perceiving pervasive discrimination among African Americans: Implications for group identification and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 135-149.
3.
Dittes, J. E. , & Kelley, H. (1956). Effects of different conditions of acceptance upon conformity to group norms. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 53, 100-107.
4.
Doosje, B. , Ellemers, N., & Spears, R. (1995). Perceived intragroup variability as a function of group status and identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 410-436.
5.
Ellemers, N. (1993). The influence of socio-structural variables on identity management strategies. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology, Vol. 4 (pp. 27-57.). West Sussex, UK: Wiley.
6.
Ellemers, N. , Van Knippenberg, A., & Wilke, H. (1990). The influence of permeability of group boundaries and stability of group status on strategies of individual mobility and social change. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 233-246.
7.
Ellemers, N. , Van Rijswijk, W., Roefs, M., & Simons, C. (1997). Bias in intergroup perceptions: Balancing group identity with social reality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 186-198.
8.
Fiske, S. T. , Xu, J., Cuddy, A. C., & Glick, P. (1999). (Dis)respecting versus (dis)liking: Status and interdependence predict ambivalent stereotypes of competence and warmth. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 473-489.
9.
Haslam, S. A. (2001). Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach. London: Sage Ltd.
10.
Hogg, M. A. (1992). The social psychology of group cohesiveness. London: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.
11.
Jackman, M. R. (1994). The velvet glove: Paternalism and conflict in gender, class, and race relations. Berkeley: University of California Press.
12.
Jackson, J. M. , & Saltzstein, H. D. (1958). The effect of person-group relationships on conformity processes. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 57, 17-24.
13.
Jetten, J. , Branscombe, N. R., Schmitt, M. T., & Spears, R. (2001). Rebels with a cause: Group identification as a response to perceived discrimination from the mainstream. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1204-1213.
14.
Lee, Y. T. , & Ottati, V. (1995). Perceived in-group homogeneity as a function of group membership salience and stereotype threat. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 610-619.
15.
Luhtanen, R. , & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of one’s social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 302-318.
16.
Mullen, B. , Brown, R., & Smith, C. (1992). Ingroup bias as a function of salience, relevance, and status: An integration. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 103-122.
17.
Nisbett, R. E. , & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231-259.
18.
Noel, J. , Wann, D. L., & Branscombe, N. R. (1995). Peripheral ingroup membership status and public negativity toward out-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 127-137.
19.
Ouwerkerk, J. W. , de Gilder, D., & de Vries, N. K. (2000). When the going gets tough, the tough get going: Social identification and individual effort in intergroup competition. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1550-1559.
20.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
21.
Schmitt, M. T. , & Branscombe, N. R. (2002). The meaning and consequences of perceived discrimination in disadvantaged and privileged social groups. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology, 12, 167-199.). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
22.
Seta, C. E. , & Seta, J. J. (1992). Observers and participants in an intergroup setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 629-643.
23.
Seta, J. J. , & Seta, C. E. (1996). Big fish in small ponds: A social hierarchy analysis of intergroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1210-1221.
24.
Sigelman, L. , & Welch, S. (1991). Black Americans’ views of racial inequality: The dream deferred. New York: Cambridge University Press.
25.
Slater, P. E. (1955). Role differentiation in small groups. American Sociological Review, 20, 300-310.
26.
Smith, H. J. , & Tyler, T. R. (1997). Choosing the right pond: The impact of group membership on self-esteem and group-oriented behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 146-170.
27.
Spears, R. , Doosje, B., & Ellemers, N. (1997). Self-stereotyping in the face of threats to group status and distinctiveness: The role of group identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 538-553.
28.
Tajfel, H. (1975). The exit of social mobility and the voice of social change. Social Science Information, 13, 65-93.
29.
Tajfel, H. (1978). The social psychology of minorities. London: Minority Rights Group.
30.
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 1-39.
31.
Tajfel, H. , Flament, C., Billig, M., & Bundy, R. P. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149-178.
32.
Tajfel, H. , & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), The psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 7-24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
33.
Turner, J. C. , Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., & Smith, P. M. (1984). Failure and defeat as determinants of group cohesiveness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 97-111.
34.
Tyler, T. R. , Degoey, P., & Smith, H. J. (1996). Understanding why the justice of group procedures matters: A test of the psychological dynamics of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 913-930.
35.
Tyler, T. R. , & Smith, H. J. (1999). Justice, social identity, and group processes. In T. R. Tyler, R. M. Kramer & O. P. John (Eds.), The psychology of the social self (pp. 223-264). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
36.
Worchel, S. , Iuzzini, J., Coutant, D., & Ivaldi, M. (2000). A multidimensional model of identity: Relating individual and group identities to intergroup behavior. In D. Capozza & R. Brown (Eds.), Social identity processes (pp. 15-32). London: Sage Ltd.
