Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Boen, F.
Right arrow Articles by Vanbeselaere, N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, Vol. 5, No. 4, 299-318 (2002)
DOI: 10.1177/1368430202005004003
© 2002 SAGE Publications

The Relative Impact of Socio-Structural Characteristics on Behavioral Reactions Against Membership in a Low-Status Group

Filip Boen

Fund for Scientific Research-Flanders and K.U. Leuven, Filip.Boen{at}psy.kuleuven.ac.be

Norbert Vanbeselaere

K.U. Leuven, Norbert.Vanbeselaere{at}psy.kuleuven.ac.be

This experiment examined how structural characteristics of an intergroup relationship influence the behavioral reactions by members of a low-status group. Participants were 542 pupils (aged 11-12 years) who were led to believe that their school class had a low intergroup status. A 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 factorial design was created by manipulating the legitimacy of the low group status, the stability of that status, the permeability of the group boundaries, and the perceived of the individual ability of the group members. Contrary to predictions derived from existing intergroup theories, these factors did not interact in determining participants’ strategy choice. The three feasibility factors (i.e. stability, permeability, and individual ability) produced substantial main effects on the choice between individual and collective strategies. The impact of legitimacy on strategy choice was rather modest and limited to collective nonnormative action and acceptance. On the other hand, legitimacy was an important determinant of ingroup bias as measured by a monetary division task. The implications for existing intergroup theories are discussed.

Key Words: collective behavior • intergroup dynamics • relative deprivation • social identity • social structure

References

  • Abeles, R. P. (1976). Relative deprivation, rising expectations and black militancy. Journal of Social Issues, 32, 119-137.
  • Bettencourt, B. A., Charlton, K., Dorr, N., & Hume, D. L. (2001). Status differences and in-group bias: A meta-analytic examination of the effects of status stability, status legitimacy, and group permeability. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 520-542.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Boen, F. (2000). Responding to membership in a low-status group: A social-psychological perspective. Doctoral dissertation, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
  • Boen, F., & Vanbeselaere, N. (1998). Reactions upon a failed attempt to enter a high status group: An experimental test of the five-stage model. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 689-696.[CrossRef]
  • Boen, F., & Vanbeselaere, N. (2000). Responding to membership of a low-status group: The effects of stability, permeability and individual ability. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 3, 41-62.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Boen, F., & Vanbeselaere, N. (2001). Individual versus collective responses to membership in a low-status group: The effects of stability and individual ability. Journal of Social Psychology, 141, 765-783.
  • Brush, S. G. (1996). Dynamics of theory of change in the social sciences: Relative deprivation and collective violence. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 40, 523-545.[Abstract]
  • Caddick, B. (1982). Perceived illegitimacy and intergroup relations. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 137-154). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Cantril, H. (1965). The pattern of human concerns. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
  • Davis, J. A. (1959). A formal interpretation of the theory of relative deprivation. Sociometry, 22, 280-296.[CrossRef]
  • De La Rey, C., & Raju, P. (1996). Group relative deprivation: Cognitive versus affective components and protest orientation among Indian South Africans. Journal of Social Psychology, 136, 579-588.
  • De Ridder, R., & Tripathi, R. C. (1992). Norm violations and intergroup relations. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
  • Dion, K. L. (1986). Responses to perceived discrimination and relative deprivation. In J. M. Olson, C. P. Herman, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Relative deprivation and social comparison: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 4, pp. 159-178). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Dubé, L., & Guimond, S. (1986). Relative deprivation and social protest: The personal-group issue. In J. M. Olson, C. P. Herman, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Relative deprivation and social comparison: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 4, pp. 201-216). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Ellemers, N., Wilke, H., & van Knippenberg, A. (1993). Effects of the legitimacy of low group or individual status on individual and collective identity enhancement strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 766-778.[CrossRef]
  • Grant, P. R., & Brown, R. (1995). From ethnocentrism to collective protest: Responses to relative deprivation and threats to social identity. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58, 195-211.[CrossRef]
  • Guimond, S., & Dubé-Simard, L. (1983). Relative deprivation theory and the Québec Nationalistic Movement: The cognitive-emotion distinction and the personal-group deprivation issue. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 526-535.[CrossRef]
  • Gurr, T. T. (1970). Why men rebel. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes. New York: Routledge.
  • Kawakami, K., & Dion, K. L. (1993). The impact of salient self-identities on relative deprivation and action intentions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 525-540.
  • Kawakami, K., & Dion, K. L. (1995). Social identity and affect as determinants of collective action: Toward an integration of relative deprivation and social identity theories. Theory & Psychology, 5, 551-577.[Abstract]
  • Klandermans, B. (1984). Mobilization and participation: Social-psychological expansions of resource mobilization theory. American Sociological Review, 49, 583-600.[CrossRef]
  • Klandermans, B. (1993). A theoretical framework for comparisons of social movement participation. Sociological Forum, 8, 383-402.[CrossRef]
  • Koomen, W., & Fraenkel, E. G. (1992). Effects of experienced discrimination and different forms of relative deprivation among Surinamese. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 2, 63-71.
  • Lalonde, R. N., & Cameron, J. E. (1994). Behavioral responses to discrimination: A focus on action. In M. P. Zanna & J. M. Olson (Eds.), The psychology of prejudice: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 7, pp. 257-288). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Louis, W. R., & Taylor, D. M. (1999). From passive acceptance to social disruption: Towards an understanding of behavioural responses to discrimination. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 31, 19-28.
  • Martin, J. (1986). The tolerance of injustice. In M. P. Zanna & J. M. Olson (Eds.), The psychology of prejudice: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 7, pp. 217-242). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Martin, J., Brickman, P., & Murray, A. (1984). Moral outrage and pragmatism: Explanations for collective action. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 20, 484-496.[CrossRef]
  • McCarthy, T. D., & Zald, M. N. (1971). Resource mobilization and social movement: A partial theory. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 1212-1241.[CrossRef]
  • McPhail, C. (1971). Civil disorder participation: A critical examination of recent research. American Sociological Review, 36, 1058-1073.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Merton, R. K., & Kitt, A. S. (1950). Contributions to the theory of reference group behavior. In R. K. Merton & P. F. Lazarsveld (Eds.), Continuities in social research: Studies in the scope and method of ‘The American Soldier’ (pp. 40-105). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
  • Muller, E. N. (1972). A test of partial theory of potential for political violence. American Political Science Review, 66, 928-959.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Mummendey, A., Kessler, T., Klink, A., & Mielke, R. (1999). Strategies to cope with negative social identity: Predictions by social identity theory and relative deprivation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 229-245.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Mummendey, A., Klink, A., Mielke, R., Wenzel, M., & Blanz, M. (1999). Socio-structural characteristics of intergroup relations and identity management strategies: Results from a field study in East Germany. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 259-286.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Mummendey, A., Mielke, R., Wenzel, M., & Kanning, U. (1996). Social identity of East Germans: The process of unification between East and West-Germany as a challenge to cope with ‘negative social identity’. In G. M. Breakwell & E. Lyons (Eds.), Changing European identities (pp. 405-428). Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.
  • Olson, J. M., & Hafer, C. L. (1996). Affect, motivation, and cognition in relative deprivation research. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Volume 3. The interpersonal context (pp. 85-117). New York: Guilford Press.
  • Runciman, W. G. (1966). Relative deprivation and social justice: A study of attidues to social inequality in twentieth-century England. London: Routledge.
  • SAS (1985). SAS user’s guide: Statistics, Version 5. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.
  • Stouffer, S., Lumsdaine, A., Lumsdaine, M., Williams, R., Smith, M., Janis, I.et al. (1949). The American Soldier. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
  • Taylor, D. M., & McKirnan, D. J. (1984). A five-stage model of intergroup relations. British Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 291-300.
  • Taylor, D. M., & Moghaddam, F. M. (1994). Theories of intergroup relations: International social pyschological perspectives (2nd ed.). London: Praeger.
  • Turner, J., & Brown, R. (1978). Social status, cognitive alternatives and intergroup relations. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups (pp. 201-234). London: Academic Press.
  • Tyler, T. R., Boeckmann, R. J., Smith, H. J., & Huo, Y. J. (1997). Social justice in a diverse society. Oxford, CO: Westview Press.
  • Vanneman, R. D., & Pettigrew, T. F. (1972). Race and relative deprivation in the urban United States. Race, 13, 461-485.
  • Walker, I., & Mann (1987). Unemployment, relative deprivation, and social protest. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13, 275-283.[Abstract]
  • Walker, I., & Pettigrew, T. F. (1984). Relative deprivation theory: An overview and conceptual critique. British Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 301-310.
  • Wright, S. C., & Taylor, D. M. (1999). Success under tokenism: Co-option of the newcomer and the prevention of collective protest. British Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 369-396.[CrossRef]
  • Wright, S. C., Taylor, D. M., & Moghaddam, F. M. (1990). Responding to membership in a disadvantaged group: From acceptance to collective protest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 994-1003.[CrossRef]

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Group Processes Intergroup RelationsHome page
F. Boen, N. Vanbeselaere, and M. Cool
Group Status as a Determinant of Organizational Identification After a Takeover: A Social Identity Perspective
Group Processes Intergroup Relations, October 1, 2006; 9(4): 547 - 560.
[Abstract] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Boen, F.
Right arrow Articles by Vanbeselaere, N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?