Abstract
We propose that low-status group members' support for group-based hierarchy and inequality (i.e., social dominance orientation; SDO) may represent an ideological strategy to guarantee the legitimacy of future ingroup status-enhancement. Specifically, we argue that, under unstable social structure conditions, SDO serves as an ideological justification for collective action tendencies aimed at competing for a higher status. In such context, SDO should be positively related with actions aimed to favor the ingroup (i.e., collective actions) by increasing group members' motivation to engage in direct competition with a relevant higher-status outgroup. We conducted two studies under highly competitive and unstable social structure contexts using real life groups. In Study 1 (N = 77), we induced Low vs. High Ingroup (University) Status and in Study 2 (N = 220) we used competing sports groups. Overall, results showed that, among members of low-status groups, SDO consistently increased individuals' motivation to get involved in actions favoring the ingroup, by boosting their motivation to compete with the opposing high-status outgroup. We discuss the results in light of the social dominance and collective action framework.
Highlights
Members of low-status groups often engage in actions aimed to improve their position in the existing hierarchical social system
We argue that support for group-based hierarchies and inequality (i.e., SDO) stand for an ideological strategy aimed to guarantee the legitimacy of future ingroup status-enhancement among members of low-status groups, namely in unstable social structures
Results showed that, among participants in the Low-status condition, social competition fully mediates the relationship between SDO and collective action, suggesting that SDO boosted individuals’ motivation to compete with the other relevant high-status outgroup, and in turn, increased their motivation to get involved in actions to favor the ingroup and to contest ingroup position in the ranking
Summary
Members of low-status groups often engage in actions aimed to improve their position in the existing hierarchical social system. Members of low-status groups should feel motivated to compete for social status with a relevant high-status outgroup, and to affirm ingroup’s superiority, achieve a positive ingroup distinctiveness and ensure intergroup differentiation (social identity theory, SIT; Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel and Turner, 1979) This is the case in competition-based intergroup contexts like sports, University rankings, political elections, countries (e.g., competing for economic or technological dominance, such as the case of USA vs China), or even regions or sub-states (e.g., pro-independence movements such as the case of India independence movement from 1857 to 1947 or the ongoing Catalonia pro-independence movements). These are the contexts that should generate intergroup conflict, in that competition aimed at reversing ingroup and outgroup status relations implies that group members are especially motivated to favor the ingroup (ingroup favoritism) and derogate the outgroup (e.g., Tajfel, 1978)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call