Striving for Success in Outgroup Settings: Effects of Contextually Emphasizing Ingroup Dimensions on Stigmatized Group Members’ Social Identity and Performance Styles
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online May, 2006
Striving for Success in Outgroup Settings: Effects of Contextually Emphasizing Ingroup Dimensions on Stigmatized Group Members’ Social Identity and Performance Styles
For members of stigmatized groups, being confronted with highstatus outgroup members threatens social identity and undermines performance on status-relevant dimensions. Two experiments examined whether the negative effects of outgroup contexts are alleviated when value is expressed for a dimension on which the stigmatized ingroup excels. Specifically, the authors assessed whether ingroup versus outgroup context and contextual value for ingroup dimensions affects group members’ reactions to failure on status-relevant dimensions and subsequent performance. Experiment 1 showed that in comparison to ingroup contexts, outgroup contexts induce stigmatized group members to protect social identity and to feel more agitated following negative performance feedback. Experiment 2 showed that when others in the context emphasize the importance of a dimension on which the ingroup excels, the negative effects of outgroup contexts are alleviated, stigmatized group members feel more cheerful concerning an upcoming task, and task performance is characterized by a focus on success.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
2.
Barreto, M.,& Ellemers, N. (in press). Multiple identities and the paradox of social inclusion. In F. Butera & J. M. Levine (Eds.), Coping with minority status: Responses to exclusion and inclusion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
3.
Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 96(4), 608-630.
4.
Crowe, E., & Higgins, E. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69(2), 117-132.
5.
Ellemers, N. (2001). Individual upward mobility and the perceived legitimacy of intergroup relations. In J. T. Jost & B. Major (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations(pp. 205-222). New York: Cambridge University Press.
6.
Ellemers, N., VanDen Heuvel, H., De Gilder, D., Maass, A.,& Bonvini, A. (2004). The underrepresentation of women in science: Differential commitment or the queen bee syndrome?British Journal of Social Psychology, 43(3), 315-338.
7.
Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievementmotivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 218-232.
8.
Förster, J., Higgins, E., & Bianco, A. T. (2003). Speed/accuracy decisions in task performance: Built-in trade-off or separate strategic concerns?Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90(1), 148-164.
9.
Hewstone, M., & Brown, R. (1986). Contact is not enough: An intergroup perspective on the “contact hypothesis.” In R. Brown & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters (pp. 1-44). Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.
10.
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280-1300.
11.
Higgins, E. T., Shah, J., & Friedman, R. (1997). Emotional responses to goal attainment: Strength of regulatory focus as moderator. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(3), 515-525.
12.
Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2000). Assimilation and diversity: An integrative model of subgroup relations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(2), 143-156.
13.
Huo, Y., & Molina, L. (in press). Is pluralism a viable model for diversity? The benefits and limits of subgroup respect. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations.
14.
Inzlicht, M., & Ben-Zeev, T. (2000). A threatening intellectual environment: Why females are susceptible to experiencing problemsolving deficits in the presence of males. Psychological Science, 11(5), 365-371.
15.
McFarlin, D. B., & Blascovich, J. (1984). On the remote associates test (rat) as an alternative to illusory performance feedback: A methodological note. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 5(3), 223-229.
16.
McGuire, W. J., & Padawer Singer, A. (1976). Trait salience in the spontaneous self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33(6), 743-754.
17.
Mummendey, A., & Wenzel, M. (1999). Social discrimination and tolerance in intergroup relations: Reactions to intergroup difference. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(2), 158-174.
18.
Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books.
19.
Schmader, T.,& Major, B. (1999). The impact of ingroup vs. outgroup performance on personal values. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(1), 47-67.
20.
Seibt, B., & Förster, J. (2004). Stereotype threat and performance: How self-stereotypes influence processing by inducing regulatory foci. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(1), 38-56.
21.
Sekaquaptewa, D., & Thompson, M. (2003). Solo status, stereotype threat, and performance expectancies: Their effects on women's performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(1), 68-74.
22.
Shah, J., Higgins, E. T., & Friedman, R. S. (1998). Performance incentives and means: How regulatory focus influences goal attainment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(2), 285-293.
23.
Simmons, R. G., Brown, L., Bush, D. M., & Blyth, D. A. (1978). Selfesteem and achievement of Black and White adolescents. Social Problems, 26(1), 86-96.
24.
Spears, R., Doosje, B., & Ellemers, N. (1999). Commitment and the context of social perception. In N. Ellemers & R. Spears (Eds.), Social identity: Context, commitment, content(pp. 59-83). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science.
25.
Steele, C. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology(Vol. 21, pp. 261-302). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
26.
Steele, C. M. (2004). A theory of diverse settings: How identity contingencies shape interactions, performance, and comfort in diverse schools and workplaces. Paper presented at the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, Washington, DC.
27.
Steele, C. M., Spencer, S. J., & Aronson, J. (2002). Contending with group image: The psychology of stereotype and social identity threat. InM. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology(Vol. 34, pp. 379-440). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
28.
Swan, S., & Wyer, R. S., Jr. (1997). Gender stereotypes and social identity: How being in theminority affects judgment of self and others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(12), 1265-1276.
29.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel& W. G. Austin (Eds.), The psychology of intergroup relations(pp. 7-24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
30.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. New York: Basil Blackwell.
31.
Wright, S. C. (2001). Strategic collective action: Social psychology and social change. In R. Brown & S. Gaertner (Eds.), Intergroup processes(pp. 409-431). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
