Assignmentfopsyc PDF

Preview

Summary

Assignment of 1 st year psychology...

Description

Abstract Social identity theory plays an important role in the understanding of in-group favouritism (Tajfel & Turner, 1979, 1989, as cited by Bettencourt et al.,2001). This study examines the effects of in-group favouritism in high and low status groups before and after identity shift to account for the relationship between in-group favouritism and identity shift. It was hypothesised that there was a greater in-group favouritism in high-status groups before and after shifting status. Participants were separated into high and low status group in random and then allocated points to in-group and out-group members before and after identity shift which status stability and group permeability were considered. When identity was not shifted, or remained, higher in-group favouritism was shown in high-status group. However, higher ingroup favouritism was shown in low-status group after identity shift which contradicted to the hypothesis. Implication for in-group favouritism and social identity theory are discussed.

Effects on in-group favouritism in high and low status groups before and after identity shift Status inequality is still being emerged and therefore harmony is difficult to be developed between high and low status group. In accordance the minimal group paradigm, Hartstone and Augoustinos (1995) found that an in-group bias was elicited in a two-group condition. Nonetheless, the Common In-group Identity Model suggested that the intergroup bias could be reduced by recategorizing participants of different groups into a common identity which intergroup conflicts could also be reduced (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000, as cited by Riek et al., 2010). Social identity theory proposed that status stability, status legitimacy and group permeability are sociostructural variables contributed to the changes of in-group favouritism 1

(Tajfel & Turner, 1979, 1989, as cited by Bettencourt et al.,2001). Prior research discovered that there was a correlation between status stability and status legitimacy in in-group bias (Bettencourt et al.,2001). It has also been shown that in-group bias could be reduced or enhanced due to the change in identity (Bettencourt et al.,2001; Reichl, 1997; Riek et al., 2010). Most previous researches focused on the in-group favouritism in high and low status groups individually (e.g., Tajfel and Turner, 1979, 1989; Hogg & Mullin, 1999, as cited by Bettencourt et al.,2001) and the relationship between status stability and group permeability is remained unknown. Therefore, the current study aimed to examine how shifting the status of participants would affect the in-group favouritism in both high and low status groups. In the current study, participants were separated into high and low status groups randomly and allocated points to in-group and out-group members before and after identity shift which status stability and group permeability were considered. Bettencourt et al. (2001) revealed that high-status group generally had a higher ingroup favouritism when status was stable. Although participants in low-status group showed a greater in-group favouritism in status-unrelated measure than status-related measure (Reichl, 1997), high-status group also generally showed a higher in-group favouritism in status-related measure when group boundaries were impermeable, regardless of relative stability (Bettencourt et al.,2001). Therefore, it seemed reasonable to hypothesise that there was a greater in-group favouritism in high-status groups before and after shifting status.

Results In the first round, a significantly higher in-group favouritism was indicated in highstatus group (A) compared to low-status group (B) (p=0.03). The mean difference of in-group 2

favouritism from A remained to a high-status group (C) was 0.2 while that changed from group A to low-status group (D) was 1.2 (Figure 1). Participants showed a significantly higher in-group favouritism in group D after shifting from group A (p=0.002). On the other hand, the mean difference of in-group favouritism from group B remained to a low-status group (E) was -0.3 while that changed from B to a high-status group (F) was -0.1 (Figure 1). In comparison of the second round, there were also significantly higher in-group favouritism in group C between group C and group F as well as in group D between group D and group E with p=0.023 and p=0.002 respectively. Additionally, significantly higher ingroup favouritism was shown in group C than group D after shifting from group A (p=0.019). Compared two high-status groups in the second round, significantly greater in-group favouritism was found in group C than group E (p=0.009). Also, significantly greater ingroup favouritism was found in group D than group F in comparison of two low-status groups in the second round (p=0.007). No other comparisons were significant (p>0.05).

Mean differences of in-group favouritism

1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 A to C

A to D

BtoE

B to F

-0.2 -0.4

Changing in status

Figure 1. Mean differences of in-group favouritism in changing groups A to C, A to D, B to E and B to F with various status. 3

Discussion Present research was conducted to examine the hypothesis that there was a greater ingroup favouritism in high-status group before and after shifting status. As predicted, significantly higher in-group favouritism was shown in high-status group before identity shift and when identities were remained the same. It was consistently shared the same results as Bettencourt et al. (2001) and Reichl (1997) found. Surprisingly, participants showed a significantly higher in-group favouritism in low-status group after shifting from a high-status group. Also, a significantly higher in-group favouritism was shown in low-status group than high status group while both status groups were shifted from their opposite status groups. Thus, these results were contradicted to the findings of Bettencourt et al. (2001) and the hypothesis. When all situations were considered as impermeable since participants were randomly allocated into different status groups, the results showed that the relative status stability had an influence on the in-group favouritism. In stable status condition, high-status group had a higher in-group favouritism since superiority complex of a member in high-status group would be enhanced by comparison (Bettencourt et al.,2001). The results revealed that when status was stable, high-status groups were more biased in favouring their in-group than lowstatus groups did. According to Bettencourt et al. (2001), high-status groups were more favoured in their in-group when status was impermeable, regardless of relative stability. Additionally, Bettencourt et al. (2001) revealed that high-status groups were more bias in their in-group on status-related measures, regardless of status stability. However, the present results indicated that the in-group favouritism in low-status group was enhanced when status was unstable. It seemed that low-status groups were feeling insecure than high status groups and they acted as

4

a collective group to reach a higher in-group favouritism which was contradicted to the findings of Bettencourt et al. (2001). Hence, the present results did not show the same findings but indicated that status stability played a more important role in in-group favouritism. The research result mostly contradicted to the findings of Bettencourt et al. (2001). Instead, the results certified high-status group has a higher in-group favouritism when status is stable in general. However, it could only reveal how individuals favour their in-group under the current social stratification without social mobility in terms of status in a single dimension. One limitation of the present research was that status legitimacy was not included as an independent variable since Bettencourt et al. (2001) stated that there was a correlation between status stability and status legitimacy as well as status legitimacy and group permeability. Also, permeable situations were not considered which was another limitation. Future research can include those three independent variables to investigate whether the ingroup favouritism in both high and low status groups are caused by the relationships of status stability, group permeability and status legitimacy.

5

References Bettencourt, B., Dorr, N., Charlton, K., & Hume, D. (2001). Status differences and in‐group bias: A meta‐analytic examination of the effects of status stability, status legitimacy, and group permeability. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 520‐542.

Hartstone, M. & Augoustinos, M. (1995). The minimal group paradigm: categorization into two versus three groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 179‐193.

Reichl, AJ. (1997). Ingroup favouritism and outgroup favouritism in low status minimal groups: differential responses to status-related and status-unrelated measures. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 617-633

Riek, BM., Mania, EW., Gaertner, SL., McDonald, SA., & Lamoreaux, MJ. (2010). Does a common ingroup identity reduce intergroup threat? Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13, 403-423.

6...