Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2018-6
When objective group membership and subjective ethnic identification don’t align: How identification shapes intergroup bias through self-enhancement and perceived threat
When objective group membership and subjective ethnic identification don’t align, which has a greater impact on how people feel towards the groups they affiliate with, and why? Deprived of many distinctiveness markers typically found in intergroup relations (e.g., physical features, obvious status differences), Taiwanese society provides a perfect natural context to explore the impact of objective group membership (Taiwanese nationality) versus subjective ethnic identification (Taiwanese or Chinese) on intergroup bias. Results from representative telephone (N = 1,060) and Internet (N = 500) surveys demonstrated that even among participants with no visible distinctiveness markers or differences in social status, subjective ethnic identification contributed to intergroup bias in favor of Taiwanese over Chinese Mainlanders (main effect). Both self-enhancement (collective self-esteem as Taiwanese) and perceived threat from Chinese Mainlanders helped account for this finding (mediation effects). Implications for intergroup relations are discussed.
AbersonC. L.HealyM.RomeroV. (2000). Ingroup bias and self-esteem: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 157–173. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0402_04
2.
AbramsD.HoggM. A. (1988). Comments on the motivational status of self-esteem in social identity and intergroup discrimination. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 317–334. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420180403
3.
BinningK.UnzuetaM. M.HuoY. J.MolinaL. E. (2009). The interpretation of multiracial status and its relation to social engagement and psychological well-being. Journal of Social Issues, 65, 35–49. doi:10.1111/j.1540–4560.2008.01586.x
4.
BizmanA.YinonY. (2001). Intergroup and interpersonal threats as determinants of prejudice: The moderating role of in-group identification. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 23, 191–196. doi:10.1207/S15324834BASP2303_5
5.
BrewerM. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475–482. doi:10.1177/0146167291175001
6.
BrewerM. B.GardnerW. (1996). Who is this we? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 83–93. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.71.1.83
7.
CampbellD. T. (1965). Ethnocentric and other altruistic motives. In LevineD. (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 13, pp. 283–311). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
8.
CapozzaD.BrownR.AharpourS.FalvoR. (2006). A comparison of motivational theories of identification. In CapozzaD.BrownR. J. (Eds.), Social identities: Motivational, emotional and cultural influences (pp. 51–72). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
9.
ChuangY.-C. (1999). The role of group identification and prejudice in the relationship between Taiwan and China. Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, 20, 73–104.
10.
CremerD. D.OosterwegelA. (1999). Collective self-esteem, personal self-esteem, and collective efficacy in in-group and outgroup evaluations. Current Psychology, 18, 326–339. doi:10.1007/s12144–999–1007–1
11.
CrockerJ.LuhtanenR. (1990). Collective self-esteem and ingroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 60–67. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.58.1.60
12.
CurseuP. L.StoopR.SchalkR. (2007). Prejudice toward immigrant workers among Dutch employees: Integrated threat theory revisited. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 125–140. doi:10.1002/ejsp.331
13.
DiehlM. (1990). The minimal group paradigm: Theoretical explanations and empirical findings. European Review of Social Psychology, 1, 263–292. doi:10.1080/14792779108401864
EthierK. A.DeauxK. (1994). Negotiating social identity when contexts change: Maintaining identification and responding to threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 243–251. doi:10.1037//0022–3514.67.2.243
16.
FischerP.HaslamS. A.SimthL. (2010). “If you wrong us, shall we not revenge?” Social identity salience moderates support for retaliation in response to collective threat. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 14, 143–150. doi:10.1037/a0017970
17.
FlippenA. R.HornsteinH. A.SiegalW. E.WeitzmanE. A. (1996). A comparison of similarity and interdependence as triggers for in-group formation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 882–893. doi:10.1177/0146167296229003
GramzowR. H.GaertnerL. (2005). Self-esteem and favoritism toward novel in-groups: The self as an evaluative base. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 801–815. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.88.5.801
20.
GriesP. H.SuJ. (2013). Taiwanese views of China and the world: Party identification, ethnicity, and cross-strait relations. Japanese Journal of Political Science, 14, 73–96. doi:10.1017/S1468109912000357
21.
HammondR. A.AxelrodR. (2006). The evolution of ethnocentrism. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 50, 926–936. doi:10.1177/0022002706293470
22.
HermanM. R. (2008). Racial identification among multiracial youth: Implications for adjustment. In QuintanaS. M.McKownC. (Eds.), Handbook of race, racism, and the developing child (pp. 203–225). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
HoggM. (1993). Subjective uncertainty reduction through self-categorization: A motivational theory of social identity processes. European Review of Social Psychology, 11, 223–255. doi:10.1080/14792772043000040
25.
HornseyM. J.HoggM. A. (2000a). Assimilation and diversity: An integrative model. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 143–156. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0402_03
26.
HornseyM. J.HoggM. A. (2000b). Intergroup similarity and subgroup relations: Some implications for assimilation. Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin, 26, 948–958. doi:10.1177/01461672002610005
27.
HsuJ.-H. (2010). Stereotype maintenance or change: The role of implicit theories in the effects of counter-stereotypic information (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan.
28.
HuangL. (2007). M shape vs. bell shape: The ideology of national identity and its psychological basis in Taiwan. Chinese Journal of Psychology, 49, 451–470. doi:10.6129/CJP.2007.4904.08
29.
JettenJ.SpearsR.MansteadA. S. R. (1997). Distinctiveness threat and prototypicality: Combined effects on intergroup discrimination and collective self-esteem. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 635–657. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099–0992(199711/12)27:6<635::AID-EJSP835>3.0.CO;2-#
30.
KaoT.-Y. (2013). “Face” and “substance”: The effect of in-group identity on two types intergroup threat (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan.
31.
LeeI.-C.PrattoF. (2011). Changing boundaries of ethnic identity and feelings towards ingroup/outgroup: Examining Taiwan residents from a psycho-historical perspective. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42, 3–24. doi:10.1177/0022022110361776
32.
LiuF. C. S. (2012). When Taiwan identifiers embrace the ROC: The complexity of state identification in Taiwan. Issues & Studies, 48, 1–34.
33.
LongK. M.SpearsR. (1998). Opposing effects of personal and collective self-esteem on interpersonal and intergroup comparisons. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 913–930. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099–0992(1998110)28:6<913::AID-EJSP903>3.0.CO;2-C
34.
McDonaldM. M.AsherB. D.KerrN. L.NavarreteC. D. (2011). Fertility and intergroup bias in racial and minimal-group contexts: Evidence for shared architecture. Psychological Science, 22, 860–865. doi:10.1177/0956797611410985
35.
MorrisonK. R.PlautV. C.YbarraO. (2010). Predicting whether multiculturalism positively or negatively influences White Americans’ intergroup attitudes: The role of ethnic identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1648–1661. doi:10.1177/0146167210386118
36.
NegyC.ShreveT. L.JensenB. J.UddinN. (2003). Ethnic identity, self-esteem, and ethnocentrism: A study of social identity versus multicultural theory of development. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 9, 333–344. doi:10.1037/1099–9809.9.4.333
37.
PattersonM. M.BiglerR. S. (2006). Preschool children’s attention to environmental messages about groups: Social categorization and the origins of intergroup bias. Child Development, 77, 847–860. doi:10.1111/j.1467–8624.2006.00906.x
38.
RiekB. M.ManiaE. W.GaertnerS. L. (2006). Intergroup threat and outgroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psycholog Review, 10, 336–353. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_4
39.
RubinM.HewstoneM. (1998). Social identity theory’s self-esteem hypothesis: A review and some suggestions for clarification. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 40–62. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0201_3
40.
SherifM. (1966). Group conflict and co-operation: Their social psychology. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
41.
SherifM.SherifC. W. (1966). Groups in harmony and tension: An integration of studies on intergroup relations. New York, NY: Octagon Books.
42.
ShihM.SanchezD. T. (2005). Perspectives and research on the positive and negative implications of having multiple racial identities. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 569–591. doi:10.1037/0033–2909.131.4.569
43.
StangorC.ThompsonE. P. (2002). Needs for cognitive economy and self-enhancement as unique predictors of intergroup attitudes. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 563–575. doi:10.1002/ejso.114
44.
StephanW. G.StephanC. W. (2000). An integrated threat theory of prejudice. In OskampS. (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 23–46). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
45.
StephanW. G.StephanC. W.GudykunstW. B. (1999). Anxiety in intergorup relations: A comparison of anxiety/uncertainty management theory and integrated threat theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23, 613–628. doi:10.1016/S0147–1767(99)00012–7
46.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In WorchelS.AustinW. G. (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
47.
WangF.-C. (2001). National imagination, ethnic consciousness, and history: Content and context analyses of the “getting to know Taiwan” textbook disputes. Taiwan Historical Research, 8, 145–208.
