The role of group status and history of the conflict on intergroup discrimination strategies

Abstract

According to Tajfel Social Identity and Intergroup Relations Theory, perception of higher status in intergroup conflict is claimed to elicited both stronger statements of ingroup identification and stronger ingroup favoritism than perceptions of lower status. It was hypothesized that the degree to which both higher and lower status conflicting groups assert ingroup identity and display ingroup favoritism also depends on the history of the conflict. This variable reflects the perceived ratio of gains and losses in the past, as well as the present expectations off positive or negative change of the status relations. A linear history of conflict (without a significant change on groups’ status position) is expected to induce weaker comparisons between groups as well as lower expectations of change, thus eliciting lower ingroup favoritism and ingroup identification assertions in both groups. Non-linear history of the conflict (with significant reversal of group’s status position in the mid-run) is expected, on the contrary, to enhance comparability between groups and expectation of change, thus eliciting stronger group categorizations, stronger assertations of group identification and higher ingroup favoritism. An experimental study was design to study these predictions. The experiment was a two factor design experiment (high vs. low status; linear vs. non-linear history of the conflict) where college students participated in a simulated conflict between two induced groups. Perceived legitimacy and stability of the status relations were controlled and group identification and intergroup differentiation strategies were observed. Predictions about the importance of the conflict to moderate ingroup identification assertations and ingroup bias were confirmed.