Two studies examined immediate (Study 1) and long-term (Study 2) behavioral consequences of previously documented asymmetries in cognitive and evaluative reactions to change in majority and minority positions within a group. Study 1 found an overall decrease in preferences for group membership immediately following change, which was preceded by decategorization and devaluation of the group in response to loss, together with lack of categorization and positive evaluation in response to gain of the majority position. Study 2 found a gradual increase in preference to stay with (vs. exit) the group among former minorities with prolonged interactions that confirmed their gained majority position. A gradual increase in preference for group membership was paralleled with gradual increases in perception of both inclusion within and differentiation from the group.
Ashmore, R. D., Deaux, K., & McLaughlin-Volpe, T. (2004). An organizational framework for collective identity: Articulation and significance of multidimensionality. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 80-114.
2.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.
3.
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: Basil Blackwell.
4.
Brewer, M. B., & Weber, J. G. (1994). Self-evaluation effects of interpersonal versus intergroup social comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 268-275.
5.
Cameron, J. E. (2001). Social identify, modern sexism, and perceptions of personal and group discrimination by women and men. Sex Roles, 45, 743-766.
6.
De Dreu, K. W., & De Vries, N. K. (2001). Group consensus and minority influence: Implications for innovation. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
7.
Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Isen, A. M., & Lowrance, R. (1995). Group representations and intergroup bias: Positive affect, similarity, and group size. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 856-865.
8.
Ellemers, N., Kortekaas, P., & Ouwerkerk, J. W. (1999). Self-categorization, commitment to the group and group self-esteem as related but distinct aspects of social identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 371-389.
9.
Forgas, J. P., & Williams, K. D. (2001). Social influence: Direct and indirect processes. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
10.
Gaertner, S. L., Mann, J. A., Dovidio, J. F., Murrell, A. J., & Pomare, M. (1990). How does cooperation reduce intergroup bias?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 692-704.
11.
Gaertner, S. L., Rust, M. C., Dovidio, J. F., Bachman, B. A., & Anastasio, P. A. (1994). The contact hypothesis: The role of a common ingroup identity in reducing intergroup bias. Small Group Research, 25, 224-249.
12.
Granberg, D., Jefferson, N. L., Brent, E. E., & King, M. (1981). Membership group, reference group, and the attribution of attitudes to groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 833-842.
13.
Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Response to decline in firms, organization, and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
14.
Jackson, J. W. (2002). Intergroup attitudes as a function of different dimensions of group identification and perceived intergroup conflict. Self and Identity, 1, 11-33.
15.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-291.
16.
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 223-265). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
17.
Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480-498.
18.
Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (2002). Group reactions to loyalty and disloyalty. In S. R. Thye & E. J. Lawler (Eds.), Group cohesion, trust, and solidarity. Advances in group processes (Vol. 19, pp. 203-228). New York: Elsevier Science.
19.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.
20.
Moreland, R. L. (1987). The formation of small groups. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Group processes. Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 80-110). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
21.
Moscovici, S., & Faucheux, C. (1972). Social influence, conformity bias, and the study of active minorities. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 149-202). New York: Academic Press.
22.
Oakes, P., Haslam, A. A., & Turner, J. C. (1991). The role of prototypicality in group influence and cohesion: Contextual variation in the graded structure of social categories. In S. Worchel, J. F. Morales, D. Paez, & J. Deschamps (Eds.), Social identity: International perspectives (pp. 75-92). London: Sage.
23.
Phinney, J. S. (1990). Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: Review of research. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 499-514.
24.
Prewitt, K., & Stone, A. (1973). The ruling elites: Elite theory, power, and American democracy. New York:Harper&Row.
25.
Prislin, R., Brewer, M., & Wilson, D. J. (2002). Changing majority and minority positions within a group vs. an aggregate. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 640-647.
26.
Prislin, R., & Christensen, P. N. (2002). Group conversion versus group expansion as modes of change in majority and minority positions: All losses hurt but only some gains gratify. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1095-1102.
27.
Prislin, R., Levine, J. M., & Christensen, P. N. (2004). When reasons matter: Attributions for conversion moderate the effect of change within groups. Manuscript under review.
28.
Prislin, R., Limbert, W. M., & Bauer, E. (2000). From majority to minority and vice versa: The asymmetrical effects of losing and gaining majority position within a group. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 385-397.
29.
Rosenthal, R., Rosnow, R. L., & Rubin, D. B. (2000). Contrast and effect sizes in behavioral research. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.
30.
Sani, F., & Toldman, J. (2002). Should we stay or should we go? A social psychological model of schism in groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1647-1655.
31.
Simon, B. (1998). Individuals, groups, and social change: On the relationship between individual and collective self-interpretations and collective action. In C. Sedikides, J. Schloper, & C. A. Insko (Eds.), Intergroup cognition and behavior (pp. 257-282). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
32.
Simon, B., Aufderheide, B., & Hastedt, C. (2000). The double negative effect: The (almost) paradoxical role of the individual self in minority and majority members’ information processing. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 73-93.
33.
Simon, B., Pantaleo, G., & Mummendey, A. (1995). Unique individual or interchangeable group member? The accentuation of intragroup differences versus similarities as an indicator of individual self versus collective self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 106-119.
34.
Steiger, J. S. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173-180.
35.
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
36.
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
37.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
38.
Turner, J. C., & Oakes, P. J. (1989). Self-categorization theory and social influence. In P. B. Paulus (Ed.), The psychology of group influence (2nd ed., pp. 233-275). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
39.
Tversky, A. (1994). Contingent preferences: Loss aversion and tradeoff contrast in decision making. Japanese Psychological Research, 36, 3-9.
40.
van Knippenberg, D. (2000). Work motivation and performance: A social identity perspective. Applied Psychology, 49, 357-371.
41.
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: Trends in theory and research (pp. 15-32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
42.
Ziller, R. C. (1965). Toward a theory of open and closed groups. Psychological Bulletin, 64, 164-182.
