Social Identity versus Personal Identity: An Investigation into the Interaction of group and Personal Status with Collective Self-Esteem on Ingroup Favouritism

Previous studies have demonstrated that self-relevant information is processed more quickly and deeply than other information, and that self-esteem could modulate the self-reference effect. Individuals with low self-esteem were shown to be more sensitive to self-related information than other information that were individuals with high self-esteem. However, these studies mainly focused on self-esteem and self at the individual level, ignoring them at the collective level. The present study aimed to determine whether collective self-esteem could modulate individual and collective self-referential processing. Collective self-esteem is associated with one’s evaluation of the group he belongs to, and it emphasizes social relationships and collective value. We hypothesized that, similar to individual self-esteem, collective self-esteem may also influence self-referential processing, especially concerning the collective. More specifically, individuals with low collective self-esteem may be more sensitive to collective self-referential processing than individuals with high collective self-esteem. In order to explore the time course of self-referential processing, event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded while participants performed a self-reference task in which they were presented with positive and negative personality trait adjectives and required to make judgements on themselves or a famous person, either Chinese or American. Participants’ own names were selected as the individual self-relevant stimuli, while Andy Lau, a famous Chinese superstar, was chosen as the individual non-self-relevant stimulus. It was considered that collective self emphasized the identity as a member of a social group. Thus, “中国人(Chinese person)” and “美国人(American person)”, were chosen as the collective self-relevant and non-self-relevant stimuli. Results showed an obvious modulation effect of collective self-esteem on the N1, P2 and P3 components in collective self-referential processing. For the early N1 component, larger N1 amplitudes were elicited by collective self-referential than collective non-self-referential processing in individuals with high collective self-esteem, whereas no such difference was observed in individuals with low collective self-esteem. For the later P2 and P3 components, larger P2 and P3 amplitudes were elicited by collective self-referential than collective non-self-referential processing in individuals with low collective self-esteem, whereas no such difference was observed in individuals with high collective self-esteem. Although an obvious individual self-referential effect was also observed in both low and high collective self-esteem individuals, the strength of the individual self-reference effect, indicated by the difference between individual self-referential and individual non-self-referential conditions, showed no significant difference between these two groups. Consistent with previous studies, the individual self was the core of self-concept and the individual self-reference effect was robust. Moreover, individual and collective self-esteem, two different aspects of self-esteem, cannot be equated. In conclusion, the present study indicated that collective self-esteem could modulate collective rather than individual self-referential processing.

The present study distinguished between personal self-esteem (PSE) and collective self-esteem (CSE) as determinants of in-group bias in an intergroup context. Subjects performed a group task, the product of which they subsequently evaluated ('own' group), along with solutions allegedly produced by another 'in-group' (similar nationality), and an 'out-group' (different nationality). This provided the opportunity for intragroup discrimination (own vs. in-group), and both direct (own vs. out-group) and indirect (in-group vs. out-group) strategies of intergroup discrimination. It was predicted that subjects high in CSE would differentiate more than subjects low in CSE, both directly and indirectly, but that intergroup discrimination would also result from high PSE. The relationship between the in-group and out-group was also manipulated by varying the salient out-group. It was predicted that subjects motivated to enhance social identity (high CSE) would differentiate more, directly and indirectly, when the out-group was seen as having a more competitive relationship with the in-group. Although this manipulation was unsuccessful, a follow-up suggested that the out-group predefined as less competitive was actually a more relevant comparison group in the context of the task, which is consistent with effects of this manipulation. Overall PSE and CSE were both found to influence differentiation at the intragroup and intergroup level, both independently and interactively. However, whereas high PSE led to greater positive differentiation, low CSE had this effect, and a combination of high PSE and low CSE produced the most consistent pattern of positive in-group differentiation across both out-group conditions. Possible mechanisms which account for this pattern are discussed and the relationship between dimensions of self-esteem and group differentiation is reappraised in the light of these findings.

This study explored the salience of ethnic public and private collective self-esteem among South African students contrasting by race. Participants were 89 black and 55 white undergraduate students (93 females, 51 males; mean age: 20 years). They completed two subscales of the collective self-esteem scale; measuring ethnic private and public collective self-esteem. Logistic regression with bootstrapping and t-tests were applied to examine differences in public and private collective self-esteem between and within race. Findings suggest white students to report higher public collective self-esteem and lower private collective self-esteem when compared to black students. The expression of collective self-esteem may be tied to private rather than public images among black South African students from exposure to intergenerational marginalization consequent from the apartheid legacy.

Research on allocation bias, inspired by social identity theory, has dealt with the relative status between groups but seldom examined the individual's personal status relative to others within the group. This experiment examined the effect of personal status on bias, and how such an effect might vary with group status. When asked to allocate money rewards directly to ingroup and outgroup members who had done equal works, subjects allocated equally regardless of status manipulations. When asked instead to assign task weightings which would then determine the rewards, (1) subjects with low personal status favoured the ingroup, regardless of their group's status; and high-status subjects either (2) allocated equally (when group status was high) or (3) favoured the outgroup (when group status was low). Thus, personal status could lead to bias either by itself or jointly with group status. Additionally, members of the low group exaggerated the ease of the task that gave them high personal status, whereas members of the high group exaggerated the difficulty of the task that gave them low personal status.

This study examined the proposition derived from the integrative developmental contextual theory (IDCT) (Bar-Tal & Teichman, 2005; Teichman & Bar-Tal, in press) that contextual circumstances determining collective self esteem (i.e. conflict and social status), and developmental stage in which identity development is a central issue (pre- and early adolescence) would influence intergroup biases. This proposition was previously examined with Israeli Jewish participants and here is re-examined in three samples, aged 8—17, including Israeli Arabs and two groups from the Palestinian Authority. The three samples were based in different intergroup contexts in which their group status was relatively high, medium or low. The findings demonstrate differences in the relationship between contextually defined collective self-esteem and intergroup attitudes. Results confirmed the hypothesis that in conflict, irrespective of age highest intergroup biases would be displayed by the high status group. However, the hypothesis that the lowest status group would express only more negativity toward the out-group was not confirmed. The developmental hypothesis that pre- and early adolescents from the high status group would express most varied and extreme biases was also confirmed. With some exceptions in the middle status group, all older adolescents displayed moderation in biases.

Collective self-esteem and the onset of chronic conditions and reduced activity in a longitudinal study of aging

It remains unclear whether low-status group members show favoritism toward a high-status outgroup. To answer this question, the present study divided 180 senior high school students into different three-person groups using the minimal intergroup paradigm. Each group was required to solve a problem together and then was informed that they had performed either well (high-status) or poorly (low-status). Next, the psychological distance to the ingroups and outgroups and collective self-esteem of each participant were measured. Members from high-status groups consistently reported a closer psychological distance to the ingroup than the outgroup (ingroup bias), whereas members from the low-status groups exhibited a reverse pattern; i.e., they reported a closer psychological distance to the high-status outgroup than the ingroup (outgroup bias). Moreover, collective self-esteem positively predicted the extent of outgroup bias such that ingroup members with higher collective self-esteem were less tolerable to the low status of their ingroup. In conclusion, the preference for high status triumphed the preference for ingroup in low-status group members, and collective self-esteem may be an important individual difference that predicted the extent of favoring high-status outgroups.

In addition to personal self-esteem, we propose that there is a second type of self-esteem, collective self-esteem. People who are high in trait collective self-esteem should be more likely to react to threats to collective self-esteem by derogating outgroups and enhanging the ingroup. In a study using the minimal intergroup paradigm, trait personal and collective self-esteem were measured, and subjects received information about the average performance of their group. We conclude that collective self-esteem is an individual difference variable that may moderate the attempt to maintain a positive social identity. The relation between collective and personal self-esteem is discussed

We examined collective self‐esteem and personal self‐esteem as a function of anticipated changes in one's prototypicality within a valued ingroup. In Study 1 (N = 80), all participants received information that they were currently peripheral group members. Expectations for the future were then manipulated, with some expecting to become more prototypical and others expecting they would be even more peripheral in the future. In addition, the source of future movement (either the group or the self) was varied. It was found that when the group was the source of movement, those who expected to shift to a more prototypical position in the future had higher collective self‐esteem than those who expected to change to an even more peripheral position. In contrast, those who anticipated an even more peripheral position had higher personal self‐esteem than those who expected to become more prototypical in the future. In Study 2 (N = 100), intragroup position at present (peripheral versus prototypical) and future intragroup position (peripheral versus prototypical) were manipulated orthogonally. It was found that future expectations only affected self‐esteem among those with an insecure current identity, but not among those who were currently prototypical of the ingroup. In addition, ingroup favoritism was mediated by self‐esteem changes among those whose identity was insecure. The importance of a dynamic framework for investigating group processes is stressed. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Right‐wing authoritarianism, stereotypes about illegal immigrants relative to legal immigrants (and nonimmigrants), and collective self‐esteem were investigated as predictors of attitude toward California's Proposition 187—the 1994 initiative making illegal immigrants ineligible for public services. Among both Latinos (n= 92) and Caucasians (n= 79), right‐wing authoritarianism and negative stereotypes about illegal immigrants predicted Proposition 187 support and reported vote. For Latinos, low collective self‐esteem and high levels of acculturation predicted support and vote in favor of Proposition 187. In contrast, high collective self‐esteem among Caucasians was related to Proposition 187 support and vote. The results suggest that 3 perspectives on prejudice—personality, cognitive, and cultural—contribute to the understanding of attitudinal and behavioral support of Proposition 187.

The effects of group size, group status and trait valence (positive or negative stereotypes of in‐ and outgroup) on intergroup bias was studied in nation‐wide probability samples of majority and minority groups in Finland and Sweden, (N = 2479). Ethnolinguistic vitality was used as a proxy for status. It is argued that the specific history of real‐life intergroup relations has to be duly acknowledged when predicting main and interactive effects on intergroup bias in natural contexts. Supporting the predictions made, numerical group size showed a stable main effect; members of numerical minorities showed more bias than members of numerical majorities, regardless of trait valence. While status had no main effect, there was a significant interaction between status and size as well as between status and trait valence: intergroup bias was highest in the high status minority, and low status groups showed less bias than high status groups on negatively valenced traits. In fact, minority members showed the reverse of PNAE. In addition, majority members favoured the outgroup on negatively valenced traits, but favoured their ingroup on positively valenced traits. Different explanations for these results are discussed. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

According to Crocker et al. (1993) people with high collective self-esteem would be primarily concerned with enhancing the self leading to positive in group evaluation rather than derogation of outgroups. In contrast, people with low collective self-esteem would be primarily concerned with protecting the self making outgroup derogation more likely than positive ingroup evaluation. These predictions were confirmed among Dutch youth evaluating ethnic minorities.

This paper reports the results of a meta‐analytic integration of the results of 137 tests of the ingroup bias hypothesis. Overall, the ingroup bias effect was highly significant and of moderate magnitude. Several theoretically informative determinants of the ingroup bias effect were established. This ingroup bias effect was significantly stronger when the ingroup was made salient (by virtue of proportionate size and by virtue of reality of the group categorization). A significant interaction between the reality of the group categorization and the relative status of the ingroup revealed a slight decrease in the ingroup bias effect as a function of status in real groups, and a significant increase in the ingroup bias effect as a function of status in artificial groups. Finally, an interaction between item relevance and ingroup status was observed, such that higher status groups exhibited more ingroup bias on more relevant attributes, whereas lower status groups exhibited more ingroup bias on less relevant attributes. Discussion considers the implications of these results for current theory and future research involving the ingroup bias effect.

A meta-analysis examined the relation between self-esteem and ingroup bias. The project focused on effects of ingroup bias strategy and measurement of self-esteem. Results indicated that high-self-esteem individuals exhibited more ingroup bias than did low-self-esteem individuals. Bias strategy and self-esteem measurement moderated this relation. When using “direct” ingroup bias strategies, high-self-esteem individuals showed more bias than did low-self-esteem individuals. When using “indirect” strategies, groups exhibited comparable amounts of bias. Results were comparable for collective and personal self-esteem measures. Examination of specific collective measures indicated that self-esteem defined by the Collective Self-Esteem Scale (Luhtanen & Crocker, 1992) did not predict differences in ingroup bias, whereas group identification measures did predict differences in ingroup bias. Results are interpreted as indicating that both high and low-self-esteem individuals exhibit ingroup bias; however, expression of ingroup bias by individuals with low self-esteem is constrained by situational factors. Furthermore, individual-level factors such as personal self-esteem may be useful in predicting collective enhancement.

The positive–negative asymmetry in social discrimination proposes a threshold for ingroup favouritism within the negative domain: in contrast to comparable studies dealing with in‐ and outgroup evaluations on positive attributes, ingroup favouritism does not occur when negative attributes are used. The present study focuses on two aspects of this threshold: it investigates processes, which may influence the absence of ingroup favouritism in the negative domain, and it tests ‘aggravating’ variables, which seem to be suficient to elicit ingroup favouritism even in the negative domain.Results show that ingroup favouritism occurred within the negative domain when several aggravating conditions were included, namely high salience of size‐ and status‐ similarity between groups and high ingroup identification. Furthermore, subjects under minimal conditions tended to overestimate relative size as well as relative status of their ingroup. The perception of group members to belong to a high status majority is interpreted as a sufficient condition counteracting tendencies towards ingroup favouritism within the negative domain.