In-Group Favoritism in Talent Attribution Julia Plaisier
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
In-group Favoritism in Talent Attribution Julia Plaisier Bachelor Thesis Julia Plaisier (10340459) Universiteit van Amsterdam Noah Millman 31-05-2016 Word count: 4538 Abstract There is a tendency to prefer people belonging to the in-group over the out-group. Social Identity Theory explains this favoritism with group-based self-esteem and the striving for positive distinctiveness. From this theory it can be expected that in-group favoritism is not only shown in relevant aspects but also in irrelevant aspects. Therefore, I conducted an online study with Ajax and Feyenoord supporters. Participants had to attribute talent to painters belonging to the in-group and the out-group. There was no in-group favoritism found in this study. Thus, Social Identity is not supported but further research is needed to make strong conclusions about this theory. 2 Introduction Groups are a pervasive feature of our social lives. We interact with people who share common group identities and also find ourselves interacting with others who belong to different groups (Balliet, Wu & de Dreu, 2014). Being a fan of a football team is an example of belonging to a social group. When being a fan of a football team you experience passion for the game and in particular for your own team. You might feel excitement when your team won a game and even feel sad and disappointed when your team is doing badly. When a significant player of your team transfers to another relevant club this player can be seen as a traitor. This is because people evaluate in-group members more positively than out-group members (Perdue, Dovidio, Gurtman & Tyler, 1990). Supporters are convinced of the extraordinary qualities that their team possesses, they tend to reward in-group members more than out-group members (Tajfel, Billig, Bundy & Flament, 1971). Supporters see their team as the best team in the whole league. For example: supporters of FC Barcelona will most likely agree that Messi was named best player in Europe (UEFA, 2015). But supporters of Real Madrid might find that Ronaldo, who was also in the running for this title, should have been named best player. Would Real Madrid supporters have this opinion because they truly find Ronaldo better or just because he plays for their team and Messi does not? Preferring the player playing for your own team is called in-group favoritism. Because the player from your team is part of your in-group you will tend to favor this player over a player from the out-group (Turner, Brown & Tajfel, 1979). Messi, who plays for the opponent, is therefore seen as out-group, which makes him less likeable for the Madrid supporters. This preference not only occurs in big events such as naming the best player in Europe but also more generally by preferring everything about your team (Mullen, Brown & Smith, 1992). This phenomenon can be seen in situations where there is an in-group and out- 3 group. People favor their own in-group compared to the out-group (Turner et al., 1979). They also evaluate in-group members more positively than out-group members (Brewer, 1979). People evaluate in-group members more positively than out-group members to maintain or create a positive impression about the in-group. They do this because they base their self-image on the group that they belong to (Voci, 2006). Assuming that people tend to seek a positive identity it is necessary to also keep seeing your in-group positively. The most common way to do this would be to perceive that your group is more positive than another relevant social group (Tajfel, 1981). To think that the team that you are supporting is better in playing football than the opponent logically follows from the above. Your team being good at football is an important aspect when you are a football supporter but one can expect that being better than another relevant social group on an unimportant domain would also promote a positive group-image. If in-group favoritism is shown in irrelevant domains such as talent in general instead of just football talent, this would mean that for example advertisement agencies could use this phenomenon to enhance convincingness of their advertising. Also for hiring procedures it would be relevant to know how easily people can be manipulated into like someone and judging their competence. For this purpose, I conducted a study with Dutch football supporters of Ajax and Feyenoord. These are two of the most rivaling teams in the Netherlands. My aim was to explore whether supporters show in-group favoritism in talent attribution when rating paintings made by in-group members (e.g. Ajax or Feyenoord supporters). In this case the talent for painting is a non-related talent for football supporters but should by my expectations still cause in-group favoritism. In the following piece I will start with a review of previous research done on this topic. I will start my line of reasoning by first explaining and define a few key concepts and then move on to explaining how these relate to each other. Then I will discuss the Social 4 Identity Theory (SIT) and the predictions for in-group favoritism that follow from this theory. Next I will describe the method and results of my study and I will conclude with a discussion of my findings. Literature Review People organize themselves and others into groups and we are all members of different types of groups (Brewer, 1996, p. 1). An example of one of those groups is called the in- group, the people who do not belong to this group are, naturally, named the out-group. The in- group can simply be defined as the group you feel that you belong to. This in-group consists of other people with whom you share something; this can be a preference or even a part of your identity. When you belong to such a group the other people that do not belong to this group are seen as the out-group. This does not necessarily have to be a group that is the exact opposite of yours, a group can be seen as the out-group simply by not belonging to the in- group. Unfortunately, the mere perception of belonging to one of two distinct groups is sufficient for in-group bias in the distribution of monetary rewards (Turner et al., 1979). A form of in-group bias is known as in-group favoritism. According to Turner et al., in-group favoritism is a descriptive concept of referring to any tendency to favor the in-group over the out-group, in behavior, attitudes, preferences or perception (1979). In a study conducted by Tajfel et al. (1971) they showed that in a minimal group, participants tend to maximize outcomes for the in-group, showing in-group favoritism. Social Identity Theory Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) tries to explain in-group favoritism. This theory states that everyone has a social identity. A person’s social identity is those 5 aspects of his self-concept conduced by the social groups to which the person perceives themselves to belong. In general, individuals are motivated to establish positively valued differences between the in-group and a relevant out-group to achieve a positive social identity (Turner et al., 1979). This group-based self-esteem can provide motivation to distinguish the in-group from the out-group. Because the view of the in-group is part of their self-concept it is assumed that people strive to value this group as positive. This search for positively valued distinctiveness can lead to in-group favoritism (Turner et al., 1979). For in-group favoritism to occur there are a few conditions according to SIT. To start, the person showing in-group favoritism should have the perception of belonging to the in- group, identifying with it and therefore base their self-esteem on the appreciation of this group (Ellemers, Kortekaas & Ouwerkerk, 1997). Also, the quality on which this person is judging an in or out-group member should be either relevant or salient. Then, it is important that the out-group is being seen as a comparison group that is relevant. And last, it should be ambiguous what the appreciation is for the attribute so that it can be seen as favoritism and not just as a general objective opinion (Turner et al., 1979). For example, no one can convincingly keep arguing that a person in his or her amateur football team is better than Messi (or Ronaldo). This is because the talent of the amateur is not comparable to the professional player and therefore not ambiguous. It is seen to be relatively less important to strive for positive distinctiveness relative to out-groups when the out-group is experienced as already being distinctly different (Brewer, 1996). To explain in-group bias with the striving for positive distinctiveness there are assumptions one must make. The first one is that the appreciation of the group largely consists of the comparison between the social groups. Hereby the evaluation of the in-group cannot be made without comparing it to the out-group (Brewer, 1991). The evaluation is not absolute but rather relative to other groups. The second assumption of SIT is that positive 6 distinctiveness signifies the fundamental need for a positive self-esteem, this self-esteem is based on the social identity (Brewer, 1996). Even though the assumptions made by SIT and the positive distinctiveness view of this theory that predict that in-group favoritism can only occur when the aspect on which the groups are being compared is relevant or salient.