Mark Rubin

Social Identity Theory's Self-Esteem Hypothesis: A Review and Some Suggestions for Clarification

Distinctions are made between global and specific, personal and social, and trait and state self-esteem, and these are used to structure a review of over 40 studies concerning social identity theorys hypothesis that (a) intergroup discrimination elevates self-esteem and (b) low self-esteem motivates discrimination. It is observed that researchers have tended to employ measures of global personal trait self-esteem in their investigations of this self-esteem hypothesis, and it is argued that measures of specific social state self-esteem are more consistent with social identity theorys assumptions. Although no convincing evidence is found for the self-esteem hypothesis in its full and unqualified form, it is argued that this is due to a lack of specificity in its formulation and it is suggested that a more qualified and specific version of the hypothesis may be more appropriate.

The Contact Caveat : Negative Contact Predicts Increased Prejudice More Than Positive Contact Predicts Reduced Prejudice

Contact researchers have largely overlooked the potential for negative intergroup contact to increase prejudice. In Study 1, we tested the interaction between contact quantity and valence on prejudice toward Black Australians (n = 1,476), Muslim Australians (n = 173), and asylum seekers (n = 293). In all cases, the association between contact quantity and prejudice was moderated by its valence, with negative contact emerging as a stronger and more consistent predictor than positive contact. In Study 2, White Americans (n = 441) indicated how much positive and negative contact they had with Black Americans on separate measures. Although both quantity of positive and negative contact predicted racism and avoidance, negative contact was the stronger predictor. Furthermore, negative (but not positive) contact independently predicted suspicion about Barack Obama’s birthplace. These results extend the contact hypothesis by issuing an important caveat: Negative contact may be more strongly associated with increased racism and discrimination than positive contact is with its reduction.

Negative Intergroup Contact Makes Group Memberships Salient: Explaining Why Intergroup Conflict Endures

Drawing from the intergroup contact model and self-categorization theory, the authors advanced the novel hypothesis of a valence-salience effect, whereby negative contact causes higher category salience than positive contact. As predicted, in a laboratory experiment of interethnic contact, White Australians (N = 49) made more frequent and earlier reference to ethnicity when describing their ethnic contact partner if she had displayed negative (vs. positive, neutral) nonverbal behavior. In a two-wave experimental study of retrieved intergenerational contact, American young adults (N = 240) reported age to be more salient during negative (vs. positive) contact and negative contact predicted increased episodic and chronic category salience over time. Some evidence for the reverse salience-valence effect was also found. Because category salience facilitates contact generalization, these results suggest that intergroup contact is potentially biased toward worsening intergroup relations; further implications for theory and policy making are discussed.

Does Multiple Categorization Reduce Intergroup Bias

Two experiments explored whether crossing social category memberships can reduce intergroup bias. Experiment 1 provided a precise comparison between discrimination against single outgroups, partial outgroups, and double outgroups. Intergroup bias and perceived intergroup similarity followed an additive pattern such that partial outgroups were discriminated against as much as single outgroups, whereas both were discriminated against to a lesser extent than double outgroups. In Experiment 2, a more realistic form of crossing was employed whereby five additional dimensions of categorization were considered by participants instead of the traditional two. In line with a decategorization perspective, intergroup bias was reduced in both multiple group conditions relative to the single categorization (baseline) condition. Participants perceived a weakened intergroup structure and displayed a greater tendency to see outgroup members as individuals in multiple group conditions; however, only perceived intergroup structure mediated the pattern of intergroup bias. The implications of these findings for conceptualizations of crossed categorization are discussed.

Secondary transfer effects from imagined contact: Group similarity affects the generalization gradient

An experiment examined the effects of imagining contact with an illegal immigrant on attitudes towards illegal immigrants and subsequent effects of that attitude change on feelings about other groups (secondary transfer). Compared to a condition in which participants imagined negative contact with an illegal immigrant, participants who imagined positive contact reported more positive attitudes concerning illegal immigrants. Using bootstrapped mediation models, effects of positive imagined contact on attitudes towards illegal immigrants were shown to generalize to other groups that were independently ranked as similar to illegal immigrants, but not to dissimilar groups. This generalization gradient effect was relatively large. Implications for theory and practical applications to prejudice reduction are discussed.

“I Am Working-Class”: Subjective Self-Definition as a Missing Measure of Social Class and Socioeconomic Status in Higher Education Research

This review provides a critical appraisal of the measurement of students’ social class and socioeconomic status (SES) in the context of widening higher education participation. Most assessments of social class and SES in higher education have focused on objective measurements based on the income, occupation, and education of students’ parents, and they have tended to overlook diversity among students based on factors such as age, ethnicity, indigeneity, and rurality. However, recent research in psychology and sociology has stressed the more subjective and intersectional nature of social class. The authors argue that it is important to consider subjective self-definitions of social class and SES alongside more traditional objective measures. The implications of this dual measurement approach for higher education research are discussed.

Why Do People Perceive Ingroup Homogeneity on Ingroup Traits and Outgroup Homogeneity on Outgroup Traits

People tend to perceive ingroup homogeneity on ingroup stereotypical traits and outgroup homogeneity on outgroup stereotypical traits (e.g., Kelly, 1989; Simon, 1992a; Simon & Pettigrew, 1990). If it is assumed that people use homogeneity ratings to indicate the extent to which groups possess traits, then this stereotype effect may be interpreted as an expression of perceived trait possession (i.e., ingroups possess ingroup stereotypical traits and outgroups possess outgroup stereotypical traits). If it is further assumed that research participants abide by the conversational norm of appropriate quantity (e.g., Bless, Strack, & Schwarz, 1993), then this stereotype effect should be significantly reduced following prior expressions of perceived trait possession. A literature review and two minimal group experiments (Ns = 75, 104) supported this prediction. This evidence is discussed in relation to the outgroup homogeneity effect and self-categorization theory.

Low status groups show in-group favoritism to compensate for their low status and compete for higher status

The present research investigated the intergroup allocation behavior of members of low-status groups. In two studies where status relations were either relatively illegitimate (Study 1, N = 139) or legitimate (Study 2, N = 114), undergraduate students completed a minimal group resource allocation task that took into account the intergroup status hierarchy. In both studies, members of low-status groups showed two forms of in-group favoritism. They selected resource allocation choices that (a) compensated for their low status and led to intergroup fairness (compensatory favoritism) and (b) competed with the out-group for status and led to positive distinctiveness for the in-group (competitive favoritism). These results suggest that members of low-status groups use in-group favoritism to make their group (a) as good as the high-status out-group and (b) better than the high-status out-group. The findings support the idea that in-group favoritism can serve different functions.

They’re All the Same!. . . but for Several Different Reasons A Review of the Multicausal Nature of Perceived Group Variability

Researchers studying people’s perceptions of variability among members of social groups, or perceived group variability, have tended to focus on the ways in which perceivers’ group affiliations lead to in-group and out-group homogeneity effects, including the other-race effect. However, recent advances have highlighted the role of additional influences. In this review, we consider the influence of (a) the perceiver’s group affiliation, (b) the group’s objective variability, (c) the group’s social position, and (d) the group’s central tendency on trait dimensions. We focus on recent research in these areas that has highlighted the strategic, context-dependent, and symbolic nature of perceived group variability. We conclude that future research needs to adopt a multicausal approach in order to provide a more complete and comprehensive account of perceived group variability.

Reactions to group devaluation and social inequality: A comparison of social identity and system justification predictions

Abstract System justification theory (SJT) proposes that support for social inequality should be stronger among members of devalued groups than among members of higher status groups; that embracing the system in this way soothes anger and leads to a withdrawal of support for social change; and that these effects should occur when group interest is weak. We compared these SJT predictions with identity management and hope for group advancement accounts that we deduced from social identity theory (SIT) which suggest that both system justification and support for social change will be significant when group interest is strong. Consistent with the SIT-based accounts, Study 1 (N = 116, Malaysia, Mage = 19.09 years) showed that strong identifiers were more concerned about their in-group’s reputation than weak identifiers, and that this concern increased system justification but only before an out-group audience to whom a need to present one’s group in good light is normally strong. Study 2 (N = 375, Australia, Mage = 23.59 years) conceptually replicated Study 1’s results and further revealed that strong identifiers justified the system due to the hope that their in-group status would improve in the future. Finally, Study 3 (N = 132, Germany, Mage = 20.34 years) revealed that system justification soothed anger and reduced support for social protest but only when group interest was strong (not weak). We did not find evidence in support of SJT predictions.