This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Garcia, S. M. Articles by Miller, D. T. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Social Categories and Group Preference Disputes: The Aversion to Winner-Take-All Solutions

University of Michigan, smgarcia{at}umich.edu

Dale T. Miller

Stanford University

Six studies explored the hypothesis that third parties are averse to resolving preference disputes with winner-take-all solutions when disputing factions belong to different social categories (e.g. gender, nationality, firms, etc.) versus the same social category. Studies 1—3 showed that third parties' aversion to winner-take-all solutions, even when they are based on the unbiased toss of a coin, is greater when the disputed preferences correlate with social category membership than when they do not. Studies 4—6 suggested that reluctance to resolve inter-category disputes in a winner-take-all manner is motivated by a desire to minimize the affective disparity—the hedonic gap—between the winning and losing sides. The implication is that winner-take-all outcomes, even those that satisfy conditions of procedural fairness, become unacceptable when disputed preferences cleave along social category lines.

Key Words: behavioral economics • competition • decision-making • distributive justice • group disputes • social categories • social comparison

References

• Abrams, D., & Hogg, M.A. (1988). Comments on the motivational status of self-esteem in social identity and intergroup discrimination. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 317—34.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Abrams, D., & Hogg, M.A. (1999). Social identity and social cognition. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
• Bazerman, M.H., & Farber, H.S. (1985). Arbitrator decision making: When are final offers important? Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 39, 76—89.[CrossRef]
• Beggan, J.K., Platow, M.J., & McClintock, C.G. (1991). Social interdependence. In R.A. Baron, W.G. Graziano, & C. Stangor (Eds.), Social psychology (pp. 394—423). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
• Blount, S. (1995). When social outcomes aren't fair: The effect of causal attributions on preferences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63, 131—144.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Bolton, G.E., Brandts, J., & Ockenfels, A. (2005). Fair procedures: Evidence from games involving lotteries. The Economic Journal, 115, 1054—1076.[CrossRef]
• Brewer, M.B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive—motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307—324.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Brickman, P., & Bulman, R.J. (1977). Pleasure and pain in social comparison. In J.M. Suls & R.L. Miller (Eds.), Social comparison processes: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
• Camerer, C. (1995). Individual decision making. In J.H. Kagel & A.E. Roth (Eds.), Handbook of experimental economics (pp. 587—703). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Crisp, R.J., & Hewstone, M. (1999). Differential evaluation of crossed category groups: Patterns, processes, and reducing intergroup bias. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 2, 307—333.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Crisp, R.J., & Hewstone, M. (2000). Crossed categorization and intergroup bias: The moderating roles of intergroup and affective context. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 357—383.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Deaux, K. (1996). Social identification. In E.T. Higgins & A.W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 777—798). New York: Guilford.
• Elster, J. (1989). Solomonic judgements. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Elster, J. (1992). Local justice. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
• Farber, H.S., & Bazerman, M.H. (1987). Why is there disagreement in bargaining? The American Economic Review, 77, 347—352.[Web of Science]
• Garcia, S., Tor, A., Bazerman, M.H., & Miller, D.T. (2005). Profit maximization versus disadvantageous inequality: The impact of self-categorization. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 18, 187—198.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Grigsby, D., & Bigoness, W. (1982). The effects of third party intervention on pre-intervention bargaining behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 549—554.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Haddock, G., & Zanna, M.P. (1998). On the use of open-ended measures to assess attitudinal components. British Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 129—149.[Web of Science]
• Haslam, S.A., McGarty, C., & Brown, P.M. (1996). The search for differentiated meaning is a precursor to illusory correlation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 611—619.[Abstract]
• Hogg, M.A., & Abrams, D. (1990). Social motivation, self-esteem and social identity. In D. Abrams & M.A. Hogg (Eds.), Social identifications: Constructive and critical advances (pp. 28—47). London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
• Kenny, D.A., Kashy, D.A., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, 4th ed., pp. 233—265). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
• Kochan, T.A. (1980). Collective bargaining and organizational behavior research. In B. Staw & L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 129—176). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
• Levine, J.M., & Moreland, R.L. (1991). Culture and socialization in work groups. In L.B. Resnick, J.M. Levine, & S.D. Teasdale (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 257—279). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
• Lind, E.A., & Tyler, T.R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum. McGarty, C. (1999). Categorization in social psychology. London: Sage.
• Neale, M.A., & Bazerman, M.H. (1983). The role of perspective-taking ability in negotiating under different forms of arbitration. Industrial and Labor Review, 36, 378—388.[CrossRef]
• Nisbett, R.E., & Wilson, T.D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231—259. Pettigrew, T.F., & Meertens, R.W. (1995). Subtle and blatant prejudice in western Europe. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 57—75. Prentice, D.A., & Miller, D.T. (2006). Inferences about differences that cross social category boundaries. Psychological Science, 17, 129—135. Raiffa, H. (1982). The art and science of negotiation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Schopler, J., Insko, C., Drigotas, S.M., Wieselquist, J., Pemberton, M.B., & Cox, C. (1995). The role of identifiability in the reduction of interindividual—intergroup discontinuity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 553—574.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Tajfel, H. (1969). Cognitive aspects of prejudice. Journal of Social Issues, 25, 79—97. Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• 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.
• Tyler, T.R., & Blader, S.L. (2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 349—361. Weber, M., Kopelman, S., & Messick, D. (2004). A conceptual review of decision making in social dilemmas: Applying the logic of appropriateness. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 281—307. Wenzel, M. (2001). A social categorization approach to distributive justice: Social identity as the link between relevance of inputs and need for justice. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 315—335.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Wenzel, M. (2002). What is social about justice? Inclusive identity and group values as the basis of the justice motive. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 205—218.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Yzerbyt, V.Y., Rocher, S., & Schadron, G. (1997). Stereotypes as explanations: A subjective essentialistic view of group perception. In R. Spears, P.J. Oakes, N. Ellemers, & S.A. Haslam (Eds.), The social psychology of stereotyping and group life (pp. 20—50). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, Vol. 10, No. 4, 581-593 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/1368430207084721


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Garcia, S. M. Articles by Miller, D. T. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?