autoestima colectiva y realcion inter y entre grupo

Distinctiveness threat and prototypicality:combined effects on intergroup

discrimination and collective self-esteem

JOLANDA JETTEN, RUSSELL SPEARS

and

ANTONY S. R. MANSTEADDepartment of Social Psychology, University of

Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Abstract

The combined influence on ingroup bias of threat to group distinctiveness andprototypicality as a group member was examined in two studies. It was predicted, inline with social identity theory, that threat to group distinctiveness would lead to moreingroup bias. In addition, on the basis of self-categorization theory it was predicted thatprotypical and peripheral group members would react differently to a threat to theirgroup distinctiveness. Only group members who define themselves as prototypical groupmembers should be motivated to defend their threatened distinctiveness by engaging inincreased ingroup bias. This hypothesis was first supported in a modified minimal groupsetting in which threat was operationalized as overlapping group boundaries. Theseresults were then replicated in a second study, using better-established groups, for whomdistinctiveness threat was manipulated in terms of intergroup similarity. Moreover,some support was found in Study 2 for the prediction that the opportunity to engage inintergroup differentiation can, under restricted conditions, enhance group-related self-esteem. # 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 27: 635±657 (1997)No. of figures: 1 No. of Tables: 3 No. of References: 42

CCC 0046±2772/97/060635-23$17.50±00 Received 19 August 1996#1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 7 November1996

European Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 27, 635±657 (1997)

Addressee for correspondence: Jolanda Jetten, Department of Social Psychology, University ofAmsterdam, Roetersstraat 15, 1018 WB Amsterdam, The Netherlands, tel: +31-20-5256714, fax: +31-20-6391896, e-mail: [email protected] research was supported by a University of Amsterdam research grant awarded to the second author.We would like to thank Nyla Branscombe, Daan van Knippenberg and an anonymous reviewer for theircomments on an earlier draft of this paper and Patrice de Bruin, Iris van der Sluis, Britt Spaan, PetrouskaSwinkels and Barbara Theunissen for their assistance during data collection.

INTRODUCTION

The present research investigates threats to distinctiveness produced by means ofoverlapping group boundaries in a modified minimal group setting (Study 1) andin terms of intergroup distance in natural groups (Study 2). Moreover,prototypicality is manipulated in both studies in order to investigate whetherreaction to a distinctiveness threat is a function of the centrality of one's positionwithin the group. We argue that perceived prototypicality of ingroup members isan important moderator of the effect of threats to distinctiveness on intergroupdifferentiation.According to social identity theory, threats to group distinctiveness and identity

can lead to increased antagonism between groups. The argument underlying thisphenomenon is that people are motivated to differentiate the ingroup from similaroutgroups on relevant dimensions of comparison in order to maintain or enhancegroup distinctiveness and social identity (cf. Brown, 1984a; Tajfel, Billig, Bundy, &Flament, 1971; Tajfel, 1982; Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Turner, 1978). Given thisemphasis of social identity theory on the importance of establishing intergroupdifferences, similarities between groups are likely to be important in instigating asearch for distinctiveness, leading to enhanced ingroup bias (Allen & Wilder, 1975;Brewer, 1979; Brown, 1984a,b; Brown & Abrams, 1986; Diehl, 1988; Mummendey &Schreiber, 1984; Roccas & Schwartz, 1993; van Knippenberg & Ellemers, 1990;Tajfel, 1982; Turner, 1978). In this research tradition, identity or distinctivenessthreats have typically been manipulated in terms of the similarity of intergroupstatus or attitudes (e.g. Dichl, 1988, Study 2). Moreover, intergroup differentiationas a function of group similarity has been observed in laboratory groups as well asnatural groups. In the present research, the standard way in which similarity haspreviously been manipulated is extended and improved by providing informationnot only about the mean intergroup difference but also about the variability withineach group.The issue addressed in the present research is not only how threat to

distinctiveness affects the level of ingroup bias at the intergroup level, but alsohow intergroup bias is affected by more intragroup factors, namely prototypicalityas a group member. In other words, we attempt not only to address the question ofwhen a group displays increased ingroup bias but also the question of who within thegroup exhibits the most ingroup bias. Although we expect that the general groupresponse to threat to distinctiveness will be heightened ingroup bias, we do notexpect all group members to express ingroup bias to a similar extent. Past researchhas focused on the moderating effect of relatively stable individual differencevariables, such as level of group identification and social value orientations, on arange of dependent variables.Moderating effects of group identification have been observed not only on

measures of ingroup bias (Roccas & Schwartz, 1993), but also on levels of ingroupstereotyping (Spears, Doosje, & Ellemers, 1997), perceived group variability (Doosje,Ellemers, & Spears, 1995), group cohesiveness (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, & Smith,1984), and evalauation of a disloyal ingroup member (Branscombe, Wann, Noel, &Coleman, 1993). For example, the study by Spears et al. (1997) showed thatdifferences between low and high identifiers in level of ingroup stereotyping were

636 J. Jetten, R. Spears and A. S. R. Manstead

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 27: 635±657 (1997) #1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

especially apparent when social identity was threatened. Only high identifiersresponded to a group threat with more ingroup stereotyping in an attempt to defendtheir distinctiveness, while low identifiers responded to this threat by distancingthemselves from the group. It has also been shown that identity threats generated bylow status led to the perception of more within-group similarities for high identifierscompared to low identifiers (Doosje et al., 1995), and to less cohesivenss after groupfailure for participants who had not chosen a particular group membership (Turneret al., 1984). In a similar vein, high identifiers (but not low identifiers) with a sportsteam were especially derogatory about disloyal group members when the ingroupwas threatened by the loss of a game (Branscombe et al., 1993).In another line of research, social value theory (e.g. McClintock, 1972) has

emphasized the influence of individual differences on intergroup bias. It has beenfound that ingroup bias varies as a function of the social value orientation ofparticipants. Such value preferences are assumed to be relatively stable withinindividuals (Kuhlman, Camac, & Cunha, 1986). Originally applied to interpersonalrelations, in an intergroup context it has been found that individuals withcompetitive social value orientations prefer relative ingroup gain allocationstrategies over fairness, while those with individualistic orientations preferabsolute ingroup gain over fairness. Individuals with prosocial value orientationsgenerally prefer fair over biased intergroup allocation rules (e.g. Platow,McClintock, & Liebrand, 1990). In sum, there is now considerable support for theeffect of individual difference variables on level of ingroup bias.The present approach differs in some important theoretical respects from the

research on moderating effects of identification and social values. Rather thanfocusing on individual differences, we argue that ingroup bias can be moderated bymore contextually defined intragroup differences. That is, level of ingroup bias canbe related to features of the comparative context, and specifically to the extent towhich one sees oneself as prototypical of the group. Prototypicality is not a fixed orstable property of the individual but can vary with the comparative context, helpingto explain situational variability in willingness to display ingroup bias. The presentresearch can therefore be seen as an attempt to integrate specific motivationalpredictions derived from social identity theory concerning the effects of a threat todistinctiveness with the self-categorization theory concept of prototypicality as agroup member (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987).Level of identification with a group and prototypicality as a group member should

be positively correlated and have similar effects on level of ingroup bias in mostsocial contexts. However, these constructs differ in three theoretical respects. First,as mentioned before and as defined by self-categorization theory, the prototypicalityconcept explicitly emphasizes context dependency. Although group identificationcan vary with context to some extent (e.g. intergroup competition may temporarilyheighten group identification), or change over time (e.g. Doosje, Spears, & Ellemers,1997), it is likely to be more stable over time and less influenced by the comparativecontext than is perceived prototypicality. Second, identification with a group, in ourview, reflects the extent to which the group as a category is integrated into the self-concept, while prototypicality as a group member is related to the position of the selfin relation to other group members, and reflects how central or peripheral the groupmember is to the group in any given intergroup context (Turner, 1991; Turner et al.,1987). Third, in contrast to identification, prototypicality is more concerned with

Intergroup threat and intragroup position 637

#1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 27: 635±657 (1997)

self-perception in relation to the group and is therefore less directly tied to affect (e.g.self-esteem) and motivational factors (see Spears et al., 1997).Drawing on self-categorization theory, the assumption is made that the

prototypical position in a group (defined in terms of meta-contrast) represents theshared views of group members and the group as a whole. The more an individualdiffers from the outgroup and the less he or she differs from the ingroup, the morethis individual is prototypical of the ingroup1. The idea that there are differences inprototypicality of group members, and that prototypical group members will bemore influential because they represent what the group has in common, has drivenmuch recent research on group polarization (Hogg, Turner, & Davidson, 1990;Turner, Wetherell, & Hogg, 1989). We predict that in intragroup terms, the positionof individual group members within the group should moderate the response to adistinctiveness threat. Combining the distinctiveness threat principle derived fromsocial identity theory with the notion of prototypicality derived from self-categorization theory, we predict greater ingroup bias when group distinctivenessis threatened by the similarity of a relevant outgroup, but that it will be above allgroup members who define themselves as prototypical who will react to thedistinctiveness threat in this way. The argument underlying this prediction is that,compared to more peripheral group members, prototypical group members shoulddefine themselves more in group terms. When the distinctiveness of this group isthreatened, these group members should be particularly motivated to defend theirgroup distinctiveness by adopting a group strategy. Peripheral group members haveless in common with other ingroup members and should therefore be less inclined toadopt a group strategy such as ingroup bias as a reaction to threateneddistinctiveness.An early study by Allen and Wilder (1975) addresses some of the central concerns

of this study. Participants were arbitrarily categorized into two groups and then led tobelieve their own attitudes were either similar or dissimilar to attitudes held by otheringroup members, and either similar or dissimilar to attitudes held by the outgroup.In accordance with the authors' prediction, it was found that only when participantsreceived feedback that they held similar attitudes to other ingroup members was morediscrimination towards the outgroup displayed. However, and unexpectedly, therewas no effect of similarity or dissimilarity of own attitude with that of the outgroup.Allen and Wilder suggested that this non-significant effect of feedback concerningoutgroup attitude may be due to features of their procedure (e.g. the minimalcategorization, and the nature of the dependent measure). Another more fundamentalreason for the absence of an outgroup attitude effect may be that crucial informationabout the similarity of the ingroup to the outgroup attitude at an intergroup level waslacking in this study. This probably led to a more interpersonal comparison processwhich may not have been perceived as threatening distinctiveness.



1Dependent on the comparative context, the prototypical position can coincide with the group mean, canbe less extreme than the group mean, or more extreme than the group mean. Intergroup threat will bedefined in the present paper in terms of group distinctiveness and varying intergroup distances whichimplies different prototypical positions in terms of meta-contrast. However, in order to prevent confoundsdue to between-condition variation in extremity positions within the group, we will define the prototypicalposition as the mean position in the group. Realizing that, as a result, the prototypicality manipulationdoes not exactly match the meta-contrast position, the manipulation of prototypicality can best beunderstood as more and less prototypical positions. We will refer to the less prototypical as the peripheralposition and to the more prototypical as the prototypical position.

We introduce two methodological refinements in the present research. First, inorder to make the intergroup context salient, we provide participants with visualinformation about the means and distributions of both ingroup and outgroup.Participants are then provided with feedback about their own position in relation tothe ingroup. Second, in line with recent research on stereotyping (Park, Judd, &Ryan, 1991), we argue that assessment of intergroup similarity requires not onlyinformation about the central tendency of ingroup and outgroup, but also about thevariability of ingroup and outgroup. For instance, the ingroup and outgroup meanscan be dissimilar but if group variability is large enough for the two distributions tooverlap, the two groups might still be perceived as quite similar. We therefore extendprevious research on similarity of intergroup status or attitudes by presentingparticipants with feedback concerning both similarity, defined as the mean differencebetween ingroup and outgroup, and distribution, defined as the variability within thetwo groups.Intergroup differentiation is one means by which group members maintain

positive social identity (Tajfel, 1982; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). It is predicted on thebasis of social identity theory that under distinctiveness-threatening conditions, onlygroup members who are able to express ingroup bias in order to restore groupdistinctiveness will subsequently show increased self-esteem (Lemyre & Smith, 1985;Oakes & Turner, 1980, for reviews see Abrams & Hogg, 1988; Hogg & Abrams,1990; Long & Spears, 1997; Messick &Mackie, 1989). In a study by Branscombe andWann (1994) only high identifiers reported elevated collective self-esteem followingderogation of an outgroup as a result of identity-threatening conditions. In the no-threat condition, amount of outgroup derogation did not significantly influencesubsequent self-esteem. Following this line of reasoning, we predict that only thosegroup members who express heightened ingroup bias in response to threat todistinctiveness will show an increase in self-esteem. Hence, under distinctiveness-threatening conditions, only prototypical group members are predicted to expresshigher levels of group-dependent self-esteem.

STUDY 1

In this experiment we examine the influence of threat to distinctiveness andintragroup position on ingroup bias in a modified minimal group setting.Distinctiveness threat is operationalized as groups having non-overlappingboundaries (low distinctiveness threat) or overlapping boundaries (highdistinctiveness threat), keeping the mean intragroup distance constant. Prototypicalgroup members are positioned centrally in the group; peripheral group members arelocated in the tail of the distribution close to the outgroup, or in the opposite tail ofthe ingroup distribution, and thus far removed from the outgroup distribution. Itshould be noted that, as a result of the outgroup position, the meta-contrast shouldbe slightly higher for peripheral group members further away from the outgroup, ascompared to the peripheral group members close to the outgroup position (seefootnote 1). Nevertheless, the two peripheral positions are comparable in the sensethat they both deviate considerably from the central group position, which is higher



in meta-contrast and prototypicality. We therefore predict negligible differences onthe dependent measures between `near' and `far' peripheral group members.Ingroup bias by means of a product evaluation task forms the primary dependent

measure of this study. We also employ measures of ingroup stereotyping, outgroupstereotyping and collective self-esteem. The stereotyping measures are intended tosupplement the ingroup bias measure and assess whether the predicted effectsgeneralize to these measures.To summarize our predictions, we expect that differences between prototypical

and peripheral group members will be especially apparent when groupdistinctiveness is threatened. First, we predict that prototypical group memberswill be more inclined than peripheral group members to display ingroup bias as aresponse to a distinctiveness threat. In a similar vein, we predict that, compared toperipheral group members, prototypical group members will define the situationmore in intergroup terms and thus be more inclined to differentiate between thegroups on stereotypic dimensions when their group distinctiveness is under threat.This should be reflected in more outgroup stereotyping and in more ingroupstereotyping. Prototypical and peripheral group members should be less likely todiffer in levels of ingroup stereotyping and outgroup stereotyping when groupdistinctiveness is not threatened. Related to this is the prediction that heightenedingroup bias (especially expected for prototypical group members whosedistinctiveness is under threat), will subsequently lead to increased levels of group-related self-esteem. In order to test predictions concerning self-esteem related togroup membership, we measure identity-specific collective self-esteem, rather thanpersonal self-esteem (cf. Long, Spears, & Manstead, 1994).

Method

Design and Participants

The design was a 2 (distinctiveness threat: low versus high)63 (intragroup position:prototypical, far peripheral, near peripheral) factorial, with random allocation ofparticipants to conditions. Participants were 101 students at the University ofAmsterdam (49 females and 52 males, distributed evenly over conditions), with anaverage age of just under 23 years. They received 10 Dutch guilders (approximately$6) for their participation.

Procedure

The experiment was run on personal computers. Participants received a shortinstruction about how to work with the computer and then started the experiment.The experiment was introduced as an investigation into `modes of perceiving'.Participants were led to believe that previous research had shown that there are twokinds of perceivers: detailed and global. They were told that the purpose of thepresent study was to examine how these modes of perception are distributed and toinvestigate whether there is a clear-cut distinction between global and detailedperceivers (a categorical division), or whether there is considerable variation within



modes of perceiving, making it necessary to examine the distribution of these twomodes (a more continuous approach). Participants were told that the aim of theexperiment was to address this question of whether the categorical or the continuousapproach yields the better insight into the way people perceive. As clarification, aparallel was drawn with gender categorization. It was pointed out that whilebiological sex is typically a clear-cut categorization, with no overlap, masculinity±femininity is a continuum, with variation within men and women and overlap in theirdistributions. This extended cover story was needed in order to enhance the credibilityof feedback concerning group distributions, to be given later in the experiment.Two tasks followed: the `dice recognition task' and the `dot estimation task'. In the

dice recognition task participants had to compare an example dice with five dice.Participants could see three sides of each dice. The five dice shared attributes (dots,lines, etc.) with the example. On four separate trials, participants had to choose thedice they considered to be most similar to the example. Participants were informedthat this task measured perceptual style in a categorical fashion: it made it possible todistinguish between detailed and global perceivers. After completion of this task thecomputer started `calculating' their score and after a couple of seconds participantsreceived (false) feedback about their mode of perceiving (all were categorized asdetailed perceivers)2. Participants were informed that a second task was necessary todetermine the extent to which they were a detailed perceiver. In this second taskparticipants were presented with seven 3-second trials in which a large number ofdots appeared on the computer screen (cf. Gerard & Hoyt, 1974). Participants had toestimate the number of dots (which ranged between 40 and 100), and were informedthat the computer would integrate the results of the two tests and that they wouldthen receive feedback concerning these integrated results. Next, in order to increaseidentification with the ingroup, a group task was performed (Doosje et al., 1995).Participants had to estimate the number of black squares that appeared for 4 secondson the computer screen. After giving their initial estimation, they received (false)feedback about the estimates of three other ingroup members and had to give theirfinal estimate. Participants were led to believe that the result of their group'sperformance would be compared to the results of a group of global perceivers.

Independent Variables

After the group task participants were informed that they would be provided withpreliminary findings of the study. They would be shown the distribution of scores ofparticipants (detailed and global perceivers) who had completed the two taskspreviously. On a continuum ranging from detailed (0) to global perceiving (100), theysaw a graphical presentation (i.e. a histogram) of the frequency distribution of theirown group's scores and the other group's scores. In all conditions, the ingroupdistribution was situated on the left and that of the outgroup on the right. Half of theparticipants were provided with histograms in which the distance between theingroup and outgroup histograms was small but non-overlapping (lowdistinctiveness threat condition). The other half were provided with ingroup and



2A pilot study (N=16) showed that the attractiveness of being categorized as a detailed perceiver(M=5.00) did not significantly differ from that of being categorized as a global perceiver (M=5.25);t(15)51.

outgroup histograms that overlapped by 10 points on the continuum (highdistinctiveness threat condition). The intragroup range (i.e. the difference betweenthe scores of the least and most detailed perceivers and the least and most globalperceivers) was 31. In all conditions, the mean score of the detailed perceivers was 33while that of the global perceivers was 67. In order to have identical group means inthe low and high distinctiveness threat conditions, the histograms of ingroup andoutgroup were slightly skewed.Next, participants were informed that they would see the histograms for a second

time and that their own score, reflecting the integrated results of the two tests, wouldbe projected onto the ingroup histogram. Intragroup position was manipulated byprojecting the score of prototypical group members at position 33 (i.e. exactly at themean of the ingroup), the score of participants in the `far' peripheral condition atposition 21, and the score of participants in the `near' peripheral group membercondition at position 48. Thus the score `near' peripheral group members was in themiddle of the overlap region in the high distinctiveness threat condition.

Dependent Variables

Three items were used to check whether the two groups were seen as more distinctivein the low distinctiveness threat as compared to the high distinctiveness threatcondition (`To what extent do you feel that detailed perceivers are distinguishablefrom global perceivers?' `To what extent do you feel that detailed perceivers aredifferent from global perceivers?' and `To what extent do you feel that detailedperceivers form a well-defined group?'). We also checked whether participants in thehigh and low distinctiveness threat conditions perceived the difference between themeans of detailed and global perceivers to be similar (`To what extent did you thinkthe means of both groups (which you can find in the middle of the distribution) weredifferent?'). The manipulation of intragroup position was checked by means of threeitems (Ì am very similar to the average detailed perceiver', Ì have a lot in commonwith detailed perceivers' and Ì am a good example of a detailed perceiver').Ingroup bias was measured by having participants evaluate the creativity of

ingroup and outgroup products. After the manipulation of prototypicality anddistinctiveness threat, participants were told that the first part of the experiment wascomplete, and that the level of creativity of detailed and global perceivers would beexamined in the second part of the experiment. Their own creativity would be testedby means of a task they would perform, together with other members of their group,in another room, after finishing all the computer tasks. Their group would thenreceive seven figures of different shapes from the experimenter (triangles, squares,etc.). Their task as a group would be to construct a figure from these differentcomponents and after 10 minutes show the experimenter the most creative figure. Inorder to `prepare them for the upcoming group task' participants would first beprovided with figures made by groups who had participated in the experimentpreviously. Participants were told that these figures had not yet been evaluated andthat their task was to judge the creativity of these figures. To make sure thatparticipants would know whether they were judging an ingroup or an outgroupfigure, they were instructed to write on a sheet of paper the type of group (detailed orglobal), the number of the group, and the title of the figure, before giving their



judgment. Participants saw 12 group products (six ingroup figures and six outgroupfigures) projected on the computer screen and had to make their creativity judgmenton a 9-point scale ranging from `not at all creative' (1) to `very creative' (9). On thebasis of pilot research we constructed two sets of figures that were matched for levelof creativity. A given set of figures was presented to half of the participants as beingconstructed by the ingroup, and to the remaining participants as having been madeby the outgroup.Ingroup stereotyping and outgroup stereotyping were measured by means of

semantic differentials. On the basis of a pilot study, traits were selected that werestereotypical for detailed and global perceivers. Participants had to indicate on a100-point scale where they judged the average ingroup member and the averageoutgroup member to be. One endpoint always represented stereotypical traits fordetailed perceivers (math-oriented, accurate, profound, rigid, cautious), while theother endpoint represented stereotypical traits for global perceivers (language-oriented, slovenly, superficial, flexible, adventurous). Additionally, collective self-esteem was measured using four items on 9-point scales ranging from (1) `not at all'to (9) `very much' (Ì think the detailed perceivers group have little to be proud of,' Ìfeel good about the detailed perceivers group,' Ì have little respect for the detailedperceivers group,' and Ì would rather not let others know that I belong to thedetailed perceivers group' (cf. Ellemers, Kortekaas, & Ouwekerk, 1995).

Results

Manipulation Checks

The three items measuring group distinctiveness were averaged (a=0.84) andanalysed in a 2 (distinctiveness threat: low versus high)63 (intragroup position:prototypical, far peripheral group member, near peripheral group member) between-subjects ANOVA. The expected main effect for distinctiveness threat was significant,F(1,95)=4.87, p50.05, indicating that participants perceived more groupdistinctiveness in the low distinctiveness threat conditions (M=4.80) compared tothe high distinctiveness threat conditions (M=4.00). Intergroup distance was notperceived differently over conditions (no significant main or interaction effects). AnANOVA on the combined manipulation check of prototypicality (a=0.82) revealed,as predicted, a main effect for intragroup position, F(2,95)=4.13, p50.05.Participants in the prototypical condition perceived themselves as moreprototypical group members (M=5.53), compared to participants in the farperipheral group member condition (M=4.47) or the near peripheral groupmember condition (M=4.74). The interaction between prototypicality anddistinctiveness threat was not significant, F(2,95)=1.05, n.s.

Intergroup Differentiation

Judgments of the creativity of the two sets differed reliably, F(1,99)=5.08, p50.05.Therefore, set was used as a covariate in all analyses of intergroup differentiation.The adjusted means are reported in Table 1. The ingroup creativity judgments andoutgroup creativity judgments (i.e. ingroup bias) were analysed in a 2 (distinctivenessthreat)63 (intragroup position)62 (target group) ANCOVA, with repeated



measures on the last factor and set as a covariate. The predicted three-wayinteraction was only marginally significant, F(2,95)=1.97, p50.14. In order tomaximize the power of the tests, the influence of distinctiveness threat andprototypicality on ingroup bias was analysed using planned comparisons (Rosenthal& Rosnow, 1984). First we predicted that ingroup bias would be higher in the highdistinctiveness threat compared to the low distinctiveness threat condition, but onlyfor prototypical group members. Second, we predicted no differences in ingroup biasbetween prototypical and peripheral group members (i.e. the average of far and nearperipheral group members) in the low distinctiveness threat condition, but significantdifferences between prototypical and peripheral group members in the highdistinctiveness threat condition.In contrast to the predictions tested in the first set of planned comparisons,

ingroup bias was not significantly higher for prototypical group members in the highcompared to the low distinctiveness threat condition. Ingroup bias did not differbetween low and high distinctiveness threat for prototypical group members, farperipheral group members or near peripheral group members (F(1,95)=1.88, n.s.;F(1,95)51; and F(1,95)=1.71, n.s., respectively). However, ingroup bias was, aspredicted, higher for prototypical as compared to peripheral group members withinthe high distinctiveness threat condition, although this effect was only marginallysignificant, F(1,95)=2.96, p50.09; bias in these groups did not differ significantly inthe low distinctiveness threat condition, F(1,95)=1.00, n.s.Planned comparisons on ingroup and outgroup product evaluations revealed that

differences were caused more by variations in ingroup evaluations betweenconditions than by variations in outgroup evaluations. Ingroup productevaluations were higher in the high distinctiveness threat compared to the lowdistinctiveness threat condition for prototypical group members, F(1,95)=4.16,p50.05, but not for far peripheral group members, F51, or for near peripheralgroup members, F(1,95)=1.51, n.s. Furthermore, the ingroup product evaluations of



Table 1. Study 1: Adjusted mean evaluation of ingroup products, adjusted mean evaluationof outgroup products and ingroup bias

Distinctiveness threatLow High

Prototypical N 17 17group member Ingroup evaluation 6.26 (0.68) 6.73 (0.63)

Outgroup evaluation 6.21 (0.65) 6.33 (0.92)Ingroup bias 0.05 (0.58) 0.40* (0.88)

Far peripheral N 16 16group member Ingroup evaluation 6.33 (0.64) 6.31 (0.81)

Outgroup evaluation 5.97 (0.96) 6.13 (0.84)Ingroup bias 0.37 (0.74) 0.18 (0.99)

Near peripheral N 18 17group member Ingroup evaluation 6.47 (0.56) 6.18 (0.76)

Outgroup evaluation 6.29 (0.84) 6.36 (0.92)Ingroup bias 0.19 (0.60) 70.18 (0.90)

Note. *Ingroup bias significantly greater than zero: p50.05. A higher mean indicates a higher creativityjudgment (on a 9-point scale).

prototypical and peripheral group members did not differ under low distinctivenessthreat (F51), but did so under high distinctiveness threat, F(1,95)=5.62, p50.05.Finally, ingroup bias did not differ between far and near peripheral group membersin either the low or the high distinctiveness threat condition.Overall, ingroup bias was significant, F(1,95)=4.57, p50.05. Further analysis

revealed that the mean ingroup evaluation significantly exceeded the mean outgroupevaluation only when distinctiveness threat was high and group membership wasprototypical, F(1,95)=4.60, p50.05 (see Table 1).

Group stereotyping

Scores representing the difference between ingroup and outgroup evaluation on eachof the five semantical differentials were submitted to a principal components analysiswith varimax rotation. This analysis revealed two components, explaining 69.6 percent of the variance. The first component (42.7 per cent of explained variance) can beinterpreted as way of behaving and consisted of the scales `rigid±flexible' and`cautious±adventurous'. The first-named trait in each pair is stereotypical foringroup (detailed perceivers), while the second-named trait is stereotypical for theoutgroup (global perceivers). The loadings were 0.90 and 0.88, respectively. Thesecond component (explaining 26.9 per cent of the variance) can be interpreted asway of thinking and consisted of the scales `math-oriented±language-oriented',`accurate±slovenly' and `profound±superficial'. The loadings were 0.83, 0.81 and0.56, respectively.Judgments of the ingroup and outgroup on these dimensions were averaged for

each component and analysed using the same set of planned comparisons as thosereported above (the predicted three-way interactions did not reach conventionalsignificance thresholds for the first, F(2,95)=2.23, p50.11, or the secondcomponent, F51).With respect to the first prediction, ingroup stereotyping was indeed higher for

prototypical group members on the first component in the high distinctiveness threatas compared to the low distinctiveness threat condition, F(1,95)=3.92, p50.05. Thiswas not true for either far peripheral group members, F51, or near peripheral groupmembers, F51. Outgroup stereotyping on the first component did not vary as afunction of distinctiveness threat for prototypical group members F(1,95)=1.90, n.s.or for peripheral group members (far peripheral group members and near peripheralgroup members, F51 and F(1,95)=1.90, n.s., respectively). Mean scores on the firstcomponent are presented in Table 2.Turning to the second set of planned comparisons, level of ingroup stereotyping

and outgroup stereotyping on the first component did not differ betweenprototypical and peripheral group members within the low distinctiveness threatcondition (F51). However, in the high distinctiveness threat condition, prototypicaland peripheral group members differed marginally significantly for ingroupstereotyping, F(1,95)=2.99, p50.09 and significantly for outgroup stereotyping,F(1,95)=3.92, p50.05. As predicted, far peripheral group members did not differfrom near peripheral group members with respect to either ingroup stereotyping oroutgroup stereotyping, in either the low or the high distinctiveness threat condition.



Equivalent sets of planned comparisons on the second component did not reveal anysignificant effects.

Collective Self-Esteem

The items of the collective self-esteem scale were recoded and averaged (a=0.74).The influence of distinctiveness threat and prototypicality on collective self-esteemwas analysed using planned comparisons. These analyses revealed no significanteffects for the crucial comparisons. Furthermore, the correlation between level ofingroup bias and collective self-esteem was not significant (r=70.06, n.s.) and noneof the within-condition correlations was significant.

Discussion

We predicted that differences between prototypical and peripheral group memberswould be especially apparent when group distinctiveness was threatened. The resultssupported this hypothesis. Only prototypical group members defended theirthreatened distinctiveness by engaging in increased levels of ingroup bias. Level ofingroup bias only reached significance in this condition, indicating that ingroup biasis not an inevitable consequence of intergroup comparisons. Furthermore, as oftenobserved in previous research, ingroup bias was caused by a higher evaluation of theingroup products and not by a devaluation of outgroup products (Brewer, 1979).Peripheral group members who did not identify themselves as typical group membersshowed less or no ingroup bias, presumably because they were less motivated topreserve their distinctive identity when this identity was threatened by overlappinggroup boundaries.Similar results were obtained on the group stereotyping measures. When

distinctiveness was threatened, prototypical group members showed more ingroup



Table 2. Study 1: Ingroup stereotyping and outgroup stereotyping

Distinctiveness threatLow High

Prototypical N 17 17group member Ingroup stereotyping 54.03 (8.85) 62.76** (13.21)

Outgroup stereotyping 43.00* (9.99) 37.47** (14.16)Far peripheral N 16 16group member Ingroup stereotyping 54.53 (11.55) 58.56** (11.70)

Outgroup stereotyping 42.72* (10.86) 42.59** (8.94)Near peripheral N 18 17group member Ingroup stereotyping 55.83 (18.05) 53.62 (11.62)

Outgroup stereotyping 40.72* (15.46) 46.18 (8.54)

Note. A mean higher than 50 indicates more stereotyping on a stereotypical ingroup trait and a meanlower than 50 means more stereotyping on a stereotypical outgroup trait (on a 100-point scale).Significantly different from 50: *p50.05, **p50.01.

and more outgroup stereotyping, compared to peripheral group members. Aspredicted, then, under distinctiveness threatening conditions, prototypical groupmembers perceived group members in stereotypical terms. Noteworthy is that thisheightened ingroup stereotyping occurred on dimensions that were not onlystereotypical for the ingroup, but also negative (rigid and cautious), whileheightened outgroup stereotyping took place on dimensions that were not onlystereotypical for the outgroup but also positive (flexible and adventurous). Spears etal. (1997) obtained a similar finding in natural groups.No differences were found between peripheral group members located near to the

outgroup and peripheral group members far from the outgroup. This rules out thepossibility that ingroup bias was lower among the former participants because of anyconfusion about their group membership. Furthermore, this finding shows that it isnot the absolute distance between oneself and the outgroup that determines reactionto a group distinctiveness threat, but rather the centrality of one's own position inthe ingroup (but see footnote 1).No support was found for the hypothesis that collective self-esteem would increase

as a direct function of elevated ingroup bias. We suspect that one reason for thisnon-significant result lies in the nature of the groups used in this modified minimalgroup setting. It has been suggested by Branscombe and Wann (1994) that when thethreatened identity is not important to the self, as is typically the case in a minimalgroup context, the need to derogate should be lessened and self-esteem will not bedependent upon that identity. It is therefore probably useful to draw a distinctionbetween minimal and natural group contexts concerning the effect of intergroupdiscrimination on collective self-esteem (Abrams & Hogg, 1988; Hogg & Abrams,1990)3. We expect that in better-established groups, in which group membership hasmore meaning for the individual and identity is more important, self-esteem will bemore strongly related to distinctiveness threats, and as a consequence ingroup biasstrategies will be used to restore group distinctiveness. This reasoning is tested inStudy 2 where the effects of a distinctiveness threat and prototypicality as a groupmember are examined in a group to which individuals are more strongly attachedand where the group identity is better established.

STUDY 2

In this second study we attempted to replicate the findings of Study 1, this time usingbetter-established, natural groups. There were two reasons for wanting to replicatethese findings in real-life groups. First, as discussed above, we suspect that the non-significant relation between ingroup bias and level of collective self-esteem found in



3Evidence for self-esteem as either the basis or result of intergroup discrimination in minimal groupexperiments is mixed. There are studies that report that opportunities to engage in intergroupdiscrimination can enhance self-esteem in minimal group contexts (e.g. Lemyre & Smith, 1985; Oakes& Turner, 1980). Other studies showed that in minimal groups, self-esteem was unrelated to differentiation(e.g. Wagner, Lampen, & Syllwasschy, 1986). It has been suggested that these inconsistent findings may bethe result of problems with the appropriate measurement of self-esteem (Abrams & Hogg, 1988; Hogg &Abrams, 1990; Long et al., 1994).

Study 1 was due to the nature of the group. Our revised hypothesis is that collectiveself-esteem only varies as a function of threats to important identities.Secondly, it has been shown in previous research that patterns of ingroup bias

found in artificial groups are not always replicated in real-life groups, where reversepatterns have even been found (Jetten, Spears, & Manstead, 1996; Mullen, Brown, &Smith, 1992). It is quite possible that such differences relate to variations betweenminimal and natural groups in level of identification and the resulting willingness todefend one's group (Spears et al., 1997). Replication of Study 1 using more naturalgroups would allow us to establish whether the effect of group distinctiveness threatand the intragroup position found in minimal groups extends to natural groups. Inour second study participants are all members of the University of Amsterdam andthis identity is made salient. The outgroup consists of students at a rival university inAmsterdam, namely the Free University.The nature of the groups was not the only difference between the two studies. We

also manipulated distinctiveness threat slightly differently, by operationalizing it asintergroup similarity at one of three levels. The attitudes of ingroup and outgroupmembers were defined as being separated by a large, medium or small intergroupdistance. In the small intergroup distance condition the groups partially overlapped.We expected this to be the most distinctiveness-threatening condition, because someoutgroup members are described as having similar attitudes as some ingroupmembers. Furthermore, because we demonstrated in Study 1 that differencesbetween peripheral and prototypical group members were due to centrality of themember's position in the group and not by absolute difference between the member'sposition and that of the outgroup, we only used the `near' peripheral position toimplement peripheral group membership. Finally, feedback about the intergroupcontext and the position of the group member, did not, as in Study 1, relate to thedimension on which the group member was categorized, but rather to a separateattitude dimension.

Method

Participants and Design

Participants were 106 students (39 female and 67 male) at the University ofAmsterdam, with an average age of 22.5 years. They were recruited in the universitycanteen and participated on a voluntary basis. The experiment was a 3 (intergroupdistance: large, medium, small)62 (intragroup position: prototypical versusperipheral group membership) between-subjects design.

Procedure

Participants were informed that the study involved a comparison between studentsof the University of Amsterdam and the Free University on the dimension `belief insupernatural phenomena'. In order to measure their own views on this topic,



participants were asked to complete a 20-item questionnaire consisting of items suchas `Reincarnation does not exist' and `I believe it is possible to have contact with thedeceased'4. They answered on 7-point scales, with 1 indicating `not at all' and 7 `verymuch'. After completing this questionnaire, participants were informed that theexperimenter would need some time to calculate their scores and that they would inthe meantime be provided with preliminary results showing the scores of Universityof Amsterdam (ingroup) and Free University (outgroup) students.

Independent variables

Participants were provided with a graphical presentation of the frequencydistribution of ingroup and outgroup scores on the dimension `belief insupernatural phenomena' which they were able to study for approximately 3minutes. The ingroup and outgroup scores were located on a continuum ranging from`no belief in supernatural phenomena' to `strong belief in supernatural phenomena'.The ingroup and outgroup were represented by two separate histograms that wereequal in variability (50mm). The ingroup distribution was situated to the left of thatof the outgroup in all conditions, indicating that University of Amsterdam studentsbelieved in supernatural phenomena to a lesser extent than Free University students5.Intergroup distance was manipulated by varying the means of the ingroup andoutgroup frequency distributions. In the large intergroup distance condition thedistance between the ingroup mean and the outgroup mean was 90mm (the totalcontinuum was 150mm). The distance between the most extreme ingroup memberand the most extreme outgroup member was 40mm. The distance between theingroup and outgroup mean in the medium intergroup distance condition was 50mm,with only 5mm separating the two distributions. In the small intergroup distancecondition, there was a 35-mm difference between the ingroup and outgroup means,and a 10-mm overlap between the ingroup and outgroup distributions.After 3 minutes the experimenter announced that she had calculated the scores of

the participants. Intragroup position was manipulated by providing participantswith (false) feedback about their own score. The experimenter marked the positionof each participant in the ingroup distribution. The mark was located exactly in themiddle (the mean) of the ingroup distribution in the prototypical condition, and onthe right-hand extreme of the distribution (i.e. closer to the outgroup) in theperipheral condition. As a consequence, the score of a participant labelled as aperipheral group member in the small intergroup condition was situated in the areawhere ingroup and outgroup overlapped.



4A pilot study was performed to check whether the dimension `belief in supernatural phenomena' is neutraland value free. First, participants (N=15) had to complete the 20-item questionnaire about `belief insupernatural phenomena' and then they had to indicate in relation to five different positions on thecontinuum, varying from (1) `no belief in supernatural phenomena' to (5) `a lot of belief in supernaturalphenomena', how pleasant they considered each of these five positions (7-point scale ranging from (1) `notat all pleasant' to (7) `very pleasant'). t-Tests showed that there were no differences in rated attractivenessof these five conditions. All five positions were rated as moderately pleasant (M=4.03).5Our choice to situate the ingroup at the less extreme, and the outgroup at the more extreme end of the`belief in supernatural phenomena' continuum is consistent with existing stereotypes about these twouniversities.

Dependent Variables

After the presentation of the preliminary results, participants received anotherquestionnaire containing dependent measures. First, the effectiveness of themanipulation of intragroup position was checked by means of two questions: (Ìam a typical student of the University of Amsterdam' and Ì am very similar to theaverage student of the University of Amsterdam'), and the manipulation ofintergroup distance was checked by two further questions (`To what extent did youperceive the means of both groups as different?' and `To what extent did youperceive the midpoints of the distributions to be separated by a small or largedistance?'). Participants answered on 9-point scales, ranging from `not at all' (1) to`very much' (9).Ingroup bias was measured by three tasks in which participants had to allocate

resources among ingroup and outgroup. They were asked to indicate how todistribute 121 student apartments, 135 grants to study abroad, and 89 positions in anational student delegation between ingroup and outgroup. Collective self-esteemwas measured using three items6: Àt the moment I am pleased to be a student at theUniversity of Amsterdam,' Àt the moment I have a good feeling about being astudent at the University of Amsterdam,' and Àt the moment I am satisfied aboutthe fact that I am a student at the University of Amsterdam' (cf. Doosje et al., 1995).Responses were made by checking 75-mm scales, ranging from (0) `not at all' to (75)`very much'.

Results

Manipulation Checks

The data were analysed in a 3 (intergroup distance: large, medium, small)62(intragroup position: prototypical versus peripheral) between-subjects analysis ofvariance. Analyses of the averaged prototypicality check items (a=0.84) revealed, aspredicted, a main effect for intragroup position, F(1,100)=18.54, p50.001. Theinteraction between prototypicality and intergroup distance was not significant.Participants defined themselves as more prototypical when their score wasprototypical for the group (M=5.38), compared to participants whose score wasperipheral (M=3.76).A main effect was found for intergroup distance on the averaged intergroup

distance manipulation check items (a=0.85), F(2,100)=3.49, p50.05. As intended,participants perceived the distance between ingroup and outgroup scores to be thelargest in the large intergroup distance condition (M=6.43). However, perceived



6We decided to measure collective self-esteem with other items compared to Study 1, because, inretrospect, we suspect that the negative formulation of three of the four items in the first study might bepart of the reason no result for collective self-esteem was found.

intergroup distance was perceived to be higher in the small (M=6.12) compared tothe medium (M=5.24) intergroup distance conditions7.

Intergroup Differentiation

As a result of the modifications to the design in this second study, we predicted alinear interaction between intergroup distance and intragroup position. Scores onthe three distribution tasks were entered into a 3 (intergroup distance)62(intragroup position) MANOVA. The predicted interaction between intergroupdistance and intragroup position was significant, F(6.95)=2.27, p50.05. However,the univariate interaction was only significant for the task in which participants hadto distribute student flats between ingroup and outgroup F(2,100)=3.46, p50.05(distribution of grants to study abroad, F(2,100)=2.14, p50.012; and positions in anational student delegation, F51). Although the univariate interactions did notreach significance on the other two distribution tasks, the patterns of means are quitesimilar.As can be seen in Table 3, prototypical group members allocated more student

flats to the ingroup as the intergroup distance became smaller, while ingroup biaswas not influenced by intergroup distance for peripheral group members (linearinteraction: F(1,100)=6.91, p50.01). A simple main effects analysis revealed thatprototypical group members displayed more ingroup bias than peripheral groupmembers in the small intergroup distance condition, F(1,100)=4.84, p50.05.Furthermore, in the large intergroup distance condition there was a trend forprototypical group members to exhibit less ingroup bias compared to peripheralgroup members, F(1,100)=2.63, p50.11.Although conditions differed with respect to the amount of ingroup bias

displayed, ingroup bias was found in all conditions except for the large intergroupdistance/prototypical condition (see Table 3). In this latter condition the percentageof the total number of allocated student flats to the ingroup did not significantlyexceed 50 per cent, t(18)=1.46, n.s.



7We suspected that this higher perceived intergroup distance in the small intergroup distance conditionswas due to ambiguity of what was meant by intergroup distance. That is, participants were probably notonly focused on the mean difference, but also on the variability and absolute difference between the twogroups when judging the intergroup distance. To address this problem, a study was conducted (N=37) inwhich participants were provided with either the low, medium or high intergroup conditions and wereasked to study the histogram and to indicate on a continuum of `belief in supernatural phenomena' wherein their view the mean ingroup position and mean outgroup position was located. The aim of this studywas to check whether the intergroup distance conditions were perceived as intended when explicitlystressing to participants that they should compare group means. An ANOVA on the difference betweenthe mean of ingroup and outgroup, revealed that the means in the large, medium and small intergroupdistance condition were perceived as intended (M=6.13 cm, M=4.61 cm and M=3.39 cm respectively),F(2,34)=6.71, p50.01. Hereafter, participants were provided with the two manipulation checks forintergroup distance. An ANOVA on the average intergroup distance manipulation check items revealed aneffect for intergroup distance, F(2,34)=3.28, p50.05. Participants now perceived between ingroup andoutgroup means in accordance with the intergroup distance manipulation (high, medium and lowintergroup distance condition was respectively, M=5.33, 4.91, 3.77). In sum, although this post-hoc studywas not conducted with the same participants as in Study 2, we are confident after all that themanipulation was perceived as intended and that problems were caused by the ambiguous formulation ofthe manipulation check items for intergroup distance.

Collective Self-Esteem

Examination of the collective self-esteem scale (a=0.80) revealed a significant lineareffect of intergroup distance, F(2,100)=4.08, p50.05. Low intergroup distance ledto higher collective self-esteem than did large intergroup distance. Although theinteraction between intergroup distance and intragroup position did not reachsignificance, further exploratory analyses were conducted to examine the effect ofintergroup distance on prototypical and peripheral group members' collective self-esteem. For prototypical group members, this analysis revealed a marginallysignificant linear effect of intergroup distance, F(1, 53)=3.14, p50.08. Collectiveself-esteem was lower in the large intergroup distance condition (M=48.38) and themedium intergroup distance condition (M=48.89), compared to the smallintergroup distance condition (M=53.93). No linear effect of intergroup distanceon level of collective self-esteem was found for peripheral group members, F(1,47)=1.13, n.s. (mean collective self-esteem in the large, medium, small intergroupconditions, M=48.20, M=49.73, and M=51.86, respectively). Neither the linearnor the quadratic interaction between intergroup distance and intragroup positionwas significant, Fs51.

Mediational Analyses

A path analysis was performed to investigate further the relationship betweencollective self-esteem and ingroup bias. We anticipated a causal path for prototypicalgroup members: whereby smaller intergroup distance leads to more collective self-esteem and that the strength of this relation would be mediated by the level ofingroup bias.For prototypical group members, the path coefficient between intergroup distance

(contrast coded as 1 when large, 0 when medium, and71 when small) and collectiveself-esteem was negative and marginally significant, b=70.24, t(55)=1.79, p50.08(see Figure 1a). In line with the linear effect described before, a smaller distancebetween ingroup and outgroup leads to higher collective self-esteem. Furthermore,intergroup distance affected the level of ingroup bias in such a way that a smallerintergroup distance led to more ingroup bias, b=70.40, t(55)=3.23, p50.005.When intergroup distance and ingroup bias were entered simultaneously into the



Table 3. Study 2: Mean percentage of the total number student flats allocated to the ingroup

Intergroup distanceLarge Medium Small

Prototypical N 19 19 18group member M 52.33a 57.85ab** 63.09b**

S.D. (6.96) (9.56) (13.37)Peripheral N 16 16 18group member M 57.96ab* 56.35ab* 55.10a*

S.D. (14.49) (10.23) (9.63)

Note. Significantly greater than 50 per cent: *p50.05, **p50.01. Only cells not sharing commonsuperscripts differ significantly from each other (p50.05), in an analysis of simple main effects.

equation, the relationship between ingroup bias and collective self-esteem wasmarginally significant, b=0.27, t(55)=1.92, p50.06, and the relationship betweenintergroup distance and collective self-esteem decreased, compared to the directeffect, b=70.13, t(55)51. In other words, for prototypical group members therelation between intergroup distance and collective self-esteem appears to be (at leastpartially) mediated by the level of ingroup bias. For peripheral group members (seeFigure 1b), the path coefficient between intergroup distance and collective self-esteem was not significant. Thus the pattern of relations between intergroupdistance, collective self-esteem, and ingroup bias found for prototypical groupmembers does not obtain for peripheral group members8.

Discussion

The general pattern of results obtained in minimal groups (Study 1) was replicated inbetter-established groups in this second study. To summarize, only prototypical



Figure 1. Ingroup bias as a mediator between intergroup distance and level of collective self-esteem. (a) Prototypical group members; (b) peripheral group members

8Other possible causal paths in which differences in collective self-esteem mediate the effect of intergroupdistance on ingroup bias were examined. However, these analyses showed that collective self-esteem didnot mediate the relation between intergroup distance and ingroup bias for prototypical or peripheralgroup members.

group members expressed more ingroup bias when the group distinctiveness wasthreatened by a smaller intergroup distance. In retrospect, it is not surprising that theeffect was only significant in univariate terms on the task in which participants hadto allocate student flats to ingroup and outgroup. In line with research in which hasbeen shown that groups tend to show ingroup bias on valued dimensions but not onirrelevant ones (Brewer, 1979; van Knippenberg & Ellemers, 1990), it seemsreasonable to argue that student apartments are more important to the interests ofstudents than are grants to study abroad or positions in a national studentdelegation.Moreover, some support was found for the prediction that in natural groups

enhanced levels of intergroup discrimination lead to enhanced collective self-esteem.More importantly, mediational analyses provided some support for this pattern forprototypical group members but not for peripheral group members, indicating thatingroup bias per se does not necessarily lead to more collective self-esteem.Significant ingroup bias was found in all three intergroup distance conditions forperipheral group members, yet this ingroup bias did not mediate the relationbetween distinctiveness threat and collective self-esteem.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

With regard to the conditions under which the most ingroup bias will be displayed,the results of the two experiments show that threat to distinctiveness, operationalizedin terms of distributional distinctiveness in Study 1 and intergroup distance in Study2, predicts when a group expresses ingroup bias. In accordance with social identitytheory and with previous research (Allen & Wilder, 1975; Brown & Abrams, 1986;Diehl, 1988; Mummendey & Schreiber, 1984; Roccas & Schwartz, 1993; Turner,1978), high threat to distinctiveness led to enhanced levels of ingroup bias.Furthermore, in Study 1, a similar pattern was found in ingroup and outgroupstereotyping, indicating that prototypical group members under distinctiveness-threatening conditions stereotype their own group more (see also Spears et al.,1997), which presumably leads to greater ingroup bias and other strategies used toenhance group distinctiveness and to achieve a positive identity. Moreover, Study 2provided support for the prediction that ingroup bias among prototypical (but notperipheral) group members would be a positive linear function of distinctivenessthreat.The question of who is most likely to express the most ingroup bias can be

answered in the following terms: prototypical group members show this bias butonly (Study 1) or especially (Study 2) when their group distinctiveness is threatened.This demonstrates that prototypical and peripheral group members have differentperceptions of their group and adopt different identity management strategies whentheir group distinctiveness is threatened (cf. Doosje et al., 1995). The more centralposition of prototypical group members makes them more strongly linked to thegroup, which implies that a group distinctiveness threat affects their own identityand the self-esteem that they derive from this group membership to a larger extent,compared to peripheral group members. Prototypical group members cope with this



distinctiveness threat by means of a group-centred strategy. Peripheral groupmembers, on the other hand, are less inclined to display ingroup bias when groupdistinctiveness is threatened. Both studies showed that prototypical and peripheralgroup members did not differ in amount of ingroup bias when group distinctivenesswas not under threat.The fact that the pattern of results was similar across the two studies is promising

because it suggests that it is permissible to generalize results found in a context wheregroup members do not strongly identify with a group to contexts where groupmembers are more strongly attached to their group. Although the absolute levels ofingroup bias found in the two studies are difficult to compare, it does seem thatthe overall level of ingroup bias is more pronounced in the natural group context.We suspect, in line with research on the moderating effect of identification oningroup bias, that this is due to differences between the two studies in the level ofgroup identification and degree of integration of the group identity into one's self-concept.The examination of the relation between intergroup differentiation and collective

self-esteem in natural groups revealed some support for the proposition that onlywhen the threatened distinctiveness is an important one does enhanced ingroup biaslead to increased levels of collective self-esteem (Branscombe & Wann, 1994). Asnoted earlier, Study 2 also shows that ingroup bias does not always enhancecollective self-esteem. Mediational analyses demonstrated that ingroup bias on thepart of peripheral group members did not lead to increased levels of collective self-esteem. This leads us to suggest that part of the confusion in the literature about thecausal relation between ingroup bias and collective self-esteem is due to differencesacross studies in the level of ingroup identification and to differences in the extent towhich group members define themselves as prototypical for the group. This suggeststhat the relation between ingroup bias and collective self-esteem is complex andcannot be fully captured simply by looking for positive correlations between thesetwo concepts (Farsides, 1995; Hinkle & Brown, 1990).In sum, the results of these two studies demonstrate the importance of intragroup

processes in intergroup relations. Self-definition as a prototypical group membermoderated the reaction to distinctiveness threat and was a necessary condition foringroup bias to occur in a minimal group setting. The present studies extend previousresearch based on social identity theory in which the moderating role ofidentification and similarity has been examined (Allen & Wilder, 1975;Branscombe et al., 1993; Doosje et al., 1995; Roccas & Schwartz, 1993; Spears etal., 1997; Turner et al., 1984). Furthermore, relating the present results to theobservation of low correlations between group identification and ingroup bias inpast research (for a review see Hinkle & Brown, 1990), we suggest that one reason forthis low correlation might be that degree of self-definition as a group member hasnot previously been taken into account. Although self-identification andprototypicality will often be positively correlated, we suggest that self-definition asa group member is essential for identification to occur. More specifically, we arguethat self-definition is prior to and underlies subsequent identification with a group(see also Spears et al., 1997). We therefore propose that examination of thecombination of prototypicality and identification on ingroup basis might be fruitfulin understanding the conditions which produce positive relations between measuresof intergroup discrimination and identification with a group.



REFERENCES

Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (1988). Comments on the motivational status of self-esteem insocial identity and intergroup discrimination. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18,317±334.

Allen, V. L., & Wilder, D. A. (1975). Categorization, belief similarity and intergroupdiscrimination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 971±977.

Branscombe, N. R., & Wann, D. L. (1994). Collective self-esteem consequences of outgroupderogation when a valued social identity is on trial. European Journal of Social Psychology,24, 641±657.

Branscombe, N. R., Wann, D. L., Noel, J. G., & Coleman, J. (1993). In-group or out-groupextremity: Importance of the threatened social identity. Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin, 19, 381±388.

Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307±324.

Brown, R. J. (1984a). The role of similarity in intergroup relations. In H. Tajfel (Ed.). Thesocial dimension: European developments in social psychology (pp. 603±623). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Brown, R. J. (1984b). The effects of intergroup similarity and cooperative versus competitiveorientation on intergroup discrimination. British Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 21±33.

Brown, R., & Abrams, D. (1986). The effects of intergroup similarity and goalinterdependence on intergroup attitudes and task performance. Journal of ExperimentalSocial Psychology, 22, 78±92.

Diehl, M. (1988). Social identity and minimal groups: The effects of interpersonal andintergroup attitudinal similarity on intergroup discrimination. British Journal of SocialPsychology, 27, 289±300.

Doosje, B., Ellemers, N., & Spears, R. (1995). Perceived intragroup variability as a function ofgroup status and identification. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 31, 410±436.

Doosje, B., Spears, R., & Ellemers, N. (1997). The dynamic and determining nature of groupidentification: Responses to anticipated and actual changes in the intergroup statushierarchy. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Ellemers, N., Kortekaas, P., & Ouwekerk, J. (1995). Self-categorization commitment to thegroup and social self-esteem as related but distinct aspects of social identity. Paper presentedat the third MuÈ nster Workshop on the Social Identity Approach, MuÈ nster, Germany,March 1995.

Farsides, T. (1995). Why social identity theory's self-esteem hypothesis has never beentestedÐand how to test it. Paper presented at British Psychological Society SocialPsychology Section Conference, York, September.

Gerard, H. B., & Hoyt, M. F. (1974). Distinctiveness of social categorization and attitudetoward ingroup members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 836±842.

Hinkle, S., & Brown, R. J. (1990). Intergroup comparisons and social identity: Some links andlacunae. In D. Abrams & M. A. Hogg (Eds), Social identity theory: Constructive and criticaladvances (pp. 48±70). New York: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.

Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1990) Social motivation, self-esteem and social identity. In D.Abrams & M. A. Hogg (Eds), Social identity theory: Constructive and critical advances(pp. 28±47). London: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.

Hogg, M. A., Turner, J. C., & Davidson, B. (1990). Polarised norms and social frames ofreference: A test of the self-categorization theory of group polarisation. Basic and AppliedSocial Psychology, 11, 77±100.

Jetten, J., Spears, R., & Manstead, A. S. R. (1997). Intergroup norms and intergroupdiscrimination: Distinctive self-categorization and social identity effects. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 71, 1222±1233.

Kuhlman, D. M., Camac, C. R., & Cunha, D. A. (1986). Individual differences in socialorientations. In H. A. M. Wilkie, D. M. Messick & C. G. Rutte (Eds), Experimental socialdilemmas. New York: Springer Verlag.

Lemyre, L., & Smith, P. M. (1985). Intergroup discrimination and self-esteem in the minimalgroup paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 660±670.



Long, K., & Spears, R. (1997). The self-esteem hypothesis revisited: Differentiation and thedisaffected. In R. Spears, P. J. Oakes, N. Ellemers, & S. A. Haslam (Eds), The socialpsychology of stereotyping and group life (pp. 296±317). Oxford: Blackwell.

Long, K., Spears, R., & Manstead, A. S. R. (1994). The influence of personal and collectiveself-esteem on strategies for social differentiation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33,313±329.

McClintock, C. G. (1972). Social motivation: A set of propositions. Behavioral Science, 17,438±454.

Messick, D. M., & Mackie, D. M. (1989). Intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology,40, 45±81.

Mullen, B., Brown, R., & Smith, C. (1992). Ingroup bias as a function of salience, relevance,and status: An integration. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 103±122.

Mummendey, A., & Schreiber, H. (1984). Social comparison, similarity and ingroupfavouritism: A replication. European Journal of Social Psychology, 14, 231±233.

Oakes, P. J., & Turner, J. C. (1980). Social categorization and intergroup behavior: Doesminimal intergroup discrimination make social identity more positive? European Journal ofSocial Psychology, 10, 295±301.

Park, B., Judd, C. M., & Ryan, C. (1991). Social categorization and the representation ofvariability information. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds), European review of socialpsychology (Vol. 2, pp. 211±245). Chichester: Wiley.

Platow, M. J., McClintock, C. G., & Liebrand, W. G. (1990). Predicting intergroup fairnessand ingroup bias in the minimal group paradigm. European Journal of Social Psychology,20, 221±239.

Roccas, S., & Schwartz, S. H. (1993). Effects of intergroup similarity on intergroup relations.European Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 581±595.

Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1984). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and dataanalysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Spears, R., Doosje, B., & Ellemers, N. (1997). Ingroup stereotyping in the face of threats togroup status and distinctiveness: The role of group identification. Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin, 23, 538±553.

Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33,1±39.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S.Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7±24). Chicago:Nelson Hall.

Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization andintergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149±178.

Turner, J. C. (1978). Social comparison, similarity and ingroup-favoritism. In H. Tajfel (Ed.),Differentiation between social groups: Studies in social psychology of intergroup relations(pp. 235±250). London: Academic Press.

Turner, J. C. (1991). Social influence. Buckingham: Open University Press.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: Basil Blackwell.

Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Turner, P. J., & Smith, P. M. (1984). Failure and defeat asdeterminants of group cohesiveness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 97±111.

Turner, J. C., Wetherell, M. S., & Hogg, M. A. (1989). Referent informational influence andgroup polarisation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 135±147.

van Knippenberg, A., & Ellemers, N. (1990). social identity and intergroup differentiationprocess. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds), European review of social psychology (vol 1,pp. 137±169). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Wagner, U., Lampen, L., & Syllwasschy, J. (1986). In-group inferiority, social identity andout-group devaluation in a modified minimal group study. British Journal of SocialPsychology, 25, 15±23.



Copyright of European Journal of Social Psychology is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content

may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express

written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

autoestima colectiva y realcion inter y entre grupo

Documents

enhancegroup distinctiveness

threatened distinctiveness

theirgroup distinctiveness

peripheral group members

ingroup bias of threat

ofoverlapping group

grouprelated selfesteem

social identity theory