Belonging threats and intergroup discrimination

Ingroup Favouring Evaluations in Response to Belonging Threats in Public and Private Contexts Kathryn H. Fahey, John A. Hunter, Damian Scarf, and Ted Ruffman University of Otago, New Zealand

In the present investigation, we sought to examine the association between threats to belonging and intergroup discrimination in private and public contexts. To this end, participants (men) received either inclusion or ostracism feedback via a Cyberball game, and then were given the opportunity to differentially evaluate ingroup (i.e., men) and outgroup (i.e., women) members whilst believing these evaluations were to remain private or be shared publicly with other ingroup members. It was found that ostracised men whose evaluations were to be shared publicly and included men whose evaluations were to remain private evaluated the ingroup significantly more positively than the outgroup. Ostracised men whose evaluations were to be shared publicly and included men whose evaluations were to remain private evaluated the ingroup and the outgroup fairly. The ramifications of these findings are discussed.

Keywords: belonging; ostracism; inclusion; intergroup discrimination; ingroup favouritism; intergroup evaluations

Introduction individual psychology is influenced by social identity, much of the research On Friday the 15th of March 2019, at group membership. The meta-theoretical investigating intergroup behaviour in the 1:40 in the afternoon, a lone gunman basis of SIT lies in the distinction discipline of social psychology has since entered the Masjid Al Noor Mosque in between personal identity and social focused on the need for self-esteem, as Christchurch, New Zealand. He carried a identity. Personal identity is active and posited by the SEH. The shift in focus to semi-automatic weapon, and opened fire drives behaviour in interpersonal self-esteem stems from conceptualization on the Muslims holding Jumu’ah (Friday contexts. Social identity (the component problems with social identity and a study Prayer) inside. By the time he was of an individual’s self-concept that is by Oakes and Turner (1980) that first arrested, just 36 minutes after the attacks derived from their group memberships stressed the role of self-esteem under the began, the gunman had killed 50 Muslims together with their associated emotional framework of SIT. The conceptual at two separate Mosques and injured at significance) drives behaviour in problem with social identity stems from least 50 more. This makes the shooter, to intergroup contexts (Tajfel & Turner, its vague definition. Moscovici and date, the perpetrator of the deadliest mass 1979; see also Hewstone & Cairns, 2001). Paicheler (1978, p. 256) point out that killing in modern New Zealand history. A further assumption of SIT is that “identity is as indispensable as it is The aftermath of such an attack was people are motivated to evaluate the self unclear”. The lack of clarity of the devastating and widespread. What could positively in the drive to attain positive concept of social identity has led to some have possibly motivated such hate? How social identity (Tajfel & Turner, 1979, contention and disagreement about the could one man kill another so heartlessly, 1986; but see Turner, 1999). One way to meaning and implications of social simply because of differing religious accomplish this goal is by engaging in identity, none more prominent than the beliefs or skin colour? One important way favourable intergroup comparisons emergence of the concept of self-esteem to begin to understand such occurrences (Turner et al., 1987). Successful (see Turner, 1999). Oakes and Turner’s is through research carried out on group intergroup comparisons are possible (1980) focus on self-esteem as a behaviour. Groups are regularly bound by through ingroup bias (e.g., bias favouring component of SIT, with their repeated common or shared beliefs like religion the ingroup), outgroup derogation (e.g., reference to the need for self-esteem as a and political ideology. When members discriminating against an outgroup), or a motivation, led to a plethora of further from one group encounter members of a combination of both (e.g., intergroup studies formulating, investigating, and group with differing beliefs and values, discrimination). SIT, therefore, proposes refining self-esteem’s role within conflict is a likely outcome. A vast body that intergroup discrimination can be intergroup discrimination. of research investigating the hostility and construed as a behavioural outcome of an To provide clarity regarding self- violence observed between groups, posit individual’s attempt to attain or maintain esteem within a SIT framework, Abrams such intergroup discrimination arises a positive social identity. and Hogg (1988) formulated the self- from the intergroup dynamics of, and Whilst much research has sought to esteem hypothesis (SEH). The SEH between, the conflicting groups. investigate links between social identity contains two specific corollaries. The first Social identity theory (SIT; Tajfel, and intergroup discrimination, a vast is that acts or displays of intergroup 1978; Tajfel & Turner, 1979, 1986) has amount of research attended to the latterly discrimination will enhance social guided much of the research on developed self-esteem hypothesis (SEH; identity and thus self-esteem. The intergroup relations over the past 40 Abrams & Hogg, 1988). Though SIT second, based on the assumption that years, providing an account of how directly addresses the need for positive people are motivated to achieve and

New Zealand Journal of Psychology Vol. 48, No. 1 April 2019 90

Belonging threats and intergroup discrimination maintain a positive sense of self-esteem, discrimination is somewhat unexpected. Noel et al. (1995) examined strategic is that low or threatened self-esteem will When fulfilled, a sense of belonging is responding in peripheral group members enhance intergroup discrimination. associated with a range of psychological by looking at differences in public versus Multiple studies have since explored benefits, including lower rates of anxiety private outgroup derogation. The findings one or the other of the corollaries of SEH. and depression, an enhanced sense of showed peripheral group members The findings outlined in subsequent self-worth and self-confidence, and derogated a relevant outgroup only when reviews (e.g., Rubin & Hewstone, 1998) heightened feelings of self-esteem, their opinions were to be made public to together with research emerging control, and meaningful existence fellow ingroup members. Peripheral afterwards (e.g., Aberson, Healy & (amongst others; see Cruwys, Haslam, group members showed no such Romero, 2000; Fein & Spencer, 1997; Dingle, Haslam, & Jetten, 2014; Fiske, derogating behaviour when these Gramzow & Gaertner, 2005; Houston & 2004). Conversely, a dissatisfied sense of opinions were to remain private. This Andreopoulou, 2003; Hunter et al., 2004; belonging is associated with a wealth of suggests that rather than reflecting Long & Spears, 1997; Verkuyten & negative psychological, behavioural and personal opinions and beliefs, publicly Hagendoorn, 2002) are largely physical outcomes (Baumeister & Leary, displayed intergroup bias may instead inconsistent and contradictory. Though a 1995; Williams, 2009). Given the clear reflect the drive or desire to increase few studies provide support for the SEH implications of a fulfilled or thwarted inclusionary status (or re-inclusion in the in its entirety (e.g., Branscombe & Wann, sense of belonging (see Baumeister & case of ostracism) with the ingroup (see 1994; Fein & Spencer, 1997; Hunter et Leary 1995 for an in-depth discussion), also Branscombe et al., 1999). This is al., 2004, expt 2; Hunter et al., 2005), the the trifling number of studies supported by the lack of bias shown by bulk of the evidence reveals merely investigating the relation between this peripheral group members when their moderate support for the first corollary, and intergroup discrimination is opinions were to remain private, as it and much less support for the second. especially surprising. would be of little benefit in terms of To overcome such inconsistencies, The studies that have examined the solidifying inclusion with the ingroup researchers have generally taken one of effect of threats to belonging (either via (Noel et al., 1995). Indeed, it seems that two routes. Some have attempted to social exclusion or social ostracism), displays of intergroup discrimination may overcome conceptual and methodological however, have found mixed results. Some be utilised strategically by peripheral flaws of the SEH (see Abrams & Hogg, studies have found rejection by an group members, in order to demonstrate 1988; Hunter et al., 1996; Rubin & ingroup to increase aggression. For they are worthy and good group members Hewstone, 1988; Turner, 1999; Hunter et example, in one study, ostracised and solidify their acceptance or inclusion al., 2004; Hunter et al., 2005; Long & (compared to included) participants in the ingroup. Spears, 1998; Scheepers, Spears, allocated more hot sauce to a stranger Similarly, other researchers have found Manstead & Doojse, 2009). Others even though they knew that the stranger that when peripheral group members suggest the motivational role of self- strongly disliked hot and spicy foods anticipated future ostracism by the group, esteem has been over-stated with respect (Warburton, et al., 2006). Other research, they showed less loyalty and to intergroup discrimination and argue however, has found that ostracism leads identification with the group. When that other motives may provide greater (at to pro-social behaviour such as increased peripheral group members expected the very least, additional) explanatory conformity (Williams et al., 2000) and increased future acceptance, those who value (Abrams & Hogg, 1988; Hogg & increased social mimicry (Lakin & highly identified with the group Abrams, 1993). Chartrand, 2005, 2008). In fact, demonstrated more loyalty (Jetten, Research assessing the contribution of ostracised participants have been shown Branscombe, Spears, & McKimmie, motives other than self-esteem to our to work harder on a group task even when 2003). Therefore, current group understanding of intergroup their efforts would benefit the very group behaviour depends on what group discrimination have so far tended to that ostracised them (Williams & members expect might happen in the emphasize uncertainty reduction (e.g., Sommer, 1997). future. This again supports the idea of Grieve & Hogg, 1999), control (Hayhurst, These divergent results may be clarified strategic responding by peripheral group Iverson, Ruffman, Stringer, & Hunter, by examining how rejected group members, in so far as they will show 2014), fear of death (Solomon, Greenberg members may strategically utilise intergroup bias if they believe this may & Pyszczynski, 2001), group-based intergroup discrimination to restore their lead to greater ingroup inclusion in the dominance (Duckitt, 2001), or position within the group. Indeed, some future. distinctiveness and inclusion (Brewer, research suggests that the display of These studies look at the behaviour of 1991). The importance of distinctiveness ingroup favouritism following some form peripheral group members. Noel et al. and inclusion is captured by the optimal of exclusion from the ingroup serves as a (1995) utilised a realistic group in terms distinctiveness theory (ODT; Brewer, kind of identity management strategy, a of sorority pledges, whereas Jetten et al. 1991). ODT is, to date, the only view we way to enhance or restore inclusion (2003) manipulated peripheral status via are aware of that promotes a central role within the ingroup (Noel et al., 1995). As bogus personality test feedback. Whilst of belonging. such, perhaps ingroup favouritism will peripheral group members have not Given that belonging is generally only increase following ostracism received an explicit belonging threat per considered fundamental to the human feedback if such behaviour could se, they are marginal group members and condition and a core motive in social potentially restore ingroup inclusion. are motivated to enhance connectedness psychology (e.g., Fiske, 2004; Biased behaviour may be utilised by to the group, as ostracised members may Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Williams, ostracised group members to reinforce be motivated to do. Therefore, we might 2009), this lack of focus on belonging as their commitment to, and shared values expect a similar pattern of strategic a motivational construct of intergroup with, the ingroup. responding in participants who have

New Zealand Journal of Psychology Vol. 48, No. 1 April 2019 91

Belonging threats and intergroup discrimination received a threat to belonging via do so (i.e., such that any displays of game was ostensibly played with other ostracism feedback: reporting bias ingroup favouritism were to be shared members of the men group, however in decisions publicly in front of the other publicly with the ingroup), would reality the participant was the only person ingroup members may influence evaluate the ingroup significantly higher playing the game. The other ‘players’ ostracised participants to show increased than the outgroup. were avatars pre-programmed to either bias. This display of bias would include or ostracise the participant. The theoretically function to demonstrate METHOD participant’s avatar was labelled Man 2 loyalty to the group and potentially Participants (me), whilst the computer-controlled increase the perceived likelihood of Participants were recruited through the avatars were labelled Man 1, Man 3, and reconnecting with the group. In keeping website, https://app.prolific.ac, in return Man 4. See Figure 1 for a screenshot of with such theorising, ostracised for a £3.50 payment. The only inclusion the Cyberball game as seen from the participants have been shown to work criteria were that participants identified as participants point of view. harder on a group task even when their men. The final pool of participants Inclusion/ostracism efforts would benefit the very group that included 207 men with an age range of 16 The computer-programmed players (or ostracised them, perhaps to prove their to 57 years (M = 26.70, SD = 7.58). In virtual confederates) were scripted to loyalty and worth to the group (Williams terms of participants’ highest level of either include or ostracise the participant. & Sommer, 1997). education, 2.4% of the participants had Upon receiving a ball toss, the participant Therefore, the present study aims to not completed high school, 40.8% had clicked on one of the three other players investigate the role of self-presentational completed high school (or equivalent they wished to throw the ball to, and the concerns relating to displays of ingroup secondary education), 37.4% had computer animated the pass. The favouritism following belonging threat. completed an undergraduate degree (or computer then dictated the throws of the To this end, participants received other tertiary education), and 19.4% had digital avatars, depending on the inclusion or ostracism feedback via a completed some form of postgraduate condition the participant was assigned to. Cyberball game. Following the threat to degree. Fifty-one participants currently The game was scripted so that belonging, participants evaluated ingroup lived in the USA, 32 in Canada, 21 in participants assigned to the inclusion and outgroup members whilst believing Portugal, 16 in each of Mexico and the condition received a fair share that these evaluations were to remain UK, 11 in Spain, 10 in Australia, eight in (approximately a quarter) of all ball private or to be shared publicly with other each of Chile and Poland, six in Greece, tosses. Those in the ostracism condition members of the ingroup. four in England, three in each of Germany received two throws at the beginning of It was hypothesised that, due to self- and Hungary, two in each of the Czech the game to become familiar with presentational concerns and a wish to Republic, Japan, and New Zealand, and gameplay and to supplement its realism. increase their belonging within the one in each of Estonia, Finland, Israel, Ostracised participants were then denied ingroup (Noel et al., 1995), participants Italy, Norway, Sweden, and Wales. Five the ball for the remainder of the game. All who received ostracism feedback and participants declined to state the country games consisted of 30 throws. believed that their intergroup evaluations they currently lived in. Belonging would be shared publicly with members Design Following the Cyberball game, of the ingroup would display ingroup Our study utilised a mixed-model participants were presented with a scale favouritism (i.e., evaluate the ingroup design. The target-group of evaluations of belonging devised by Sheldon and more positively than the outgroup). (i.e., ingroup vs outgroup) was within Bettencourt (2002). This scale (adapted Displays of ingroup favouritism privately groups. Belonging feedback (i.e., slightly to become specific to the men would be of little benefit in terms of inclusion vs ostracism) and the nature of group of interest in the current study) was solidifying inclusion (Noel et al., 1995), favouritism (i.e., public vs private) were comprised of three items; ‘I feel that other and so it was anticipated that ostracised between subjects. Allocation of men have included me’, ‘I feel well participants who expected their participants to each condition was integrated with other men’, and ‘I feel a intergroup evaluations to remain private, random. The number of participants sense of belongingness with other men’ would not evaluate the ingroup and the allocated to each condition is presented in (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.95). Participants’ outgroup differently. Participants who Table 1. responses were scored using a 7-point received inclusion feedback should have Likert scale (1 – strongly agree, 7 – felt secure with their status within the Procedure strongly disagree), and were specific to ingroup and thus no self-presentation Following a procedure similar to how participants felt ‘right now’. concerns were anticipated (Noel et al., Williams et al. (2000), participants were Public/private bias task: 1995). Therefore, participants who told they would be playing a Cyberball Evaluations received inclusion feedback were not game with other members of the all-male Following the belonging scale, all expected to rate the ingroup and the group. It was made clear that performance participants were given the opportunity to outgroup differently whether they in the game was not important, rather, the differentially evaluate ingroup (i.e., men) believed their evaluations would remain game was a chance to practice their and outgroup members (i.e., women) private or be shared publicly with the visualisation skills. Participants were using 20 pairs of 11-point trait rating ingroup. encouraged to visualise themselves, the scales. Participants assigned to the private In other words, it was hypothesised that environment, and other players. It was condition were told that their evaluations only participants who wished to increase emphasised that the results of the game of ingroup and outgroup members would their inclusionary status within the group were of no importance, but it was remain private. Those assigned to the (i.e., ostracised participants), and who paramount they participate in the game public condition were informed their believed there was a reasonable chance to and focus on their visualisation skills. The evaluations would be made public and

New Zealand Journal of Psychology Vol. 48, No. 1 April 2019 92

Belonging threats and intergroup discrimination were to be shared with other men during humble-arrogant, confident-shy, what they thought the study was about, a group discussion, ostensibly occurring aggressive-non-aggressive, ignorant- (b) if they noticed anything odd or later in the experiment. well informed, straight forward- unusual about the study, (c) if they had The 20 pairs of evaluative traits were hypocritical). Counterbalancing was used taken part in similar studies before, (d) if taken from Platow, McClintock, and to rule out ordering effects, and reverse they took the study seriously, and (e) if Liebrand (1990; cooperative-competitive, scoring was employed where necessary they normally consider themselves to be helpful-unhelpful, selfish-unselfish, such that higher scores indicated more men. Information was also gathered on intelligent-unintelligent, strong-weak, positive ratings. participants’ age, highest level of warm-cold, flexible-rigid, manipulative- Manipulation checks education, and current country of sincere, fair-unfair, honest-dishonest, In the final step of the experiment, residence. Finally, participants were fully friendly-unfriendly, trustworthy- participants were presented with a series debriefed, thanked for their time and untrustworthy, consistent-inconsistent), of manipulation checks and demographic interest in the study, and paid. and Oakes et al. (1994; pushy-reticent, questions. Participants were asked (a)

Table 1. Number of men per condition.

Nature of Favouritism Belonging Feedback Private Public Total Inclusion 53 53 106 Ostracism 50 51 101 Total 103 104 207

Figure 1. Screenshot of Cyberball game as seen from the participant’s point of view.

RESULTS 2 (nature of favouritism: private vs feedback had lower belonging scores than Belonging public) between groups’ analysis of participants who received inclusion In order to assess the effectiveness of variance (ANOVA) (analysis of variance) feedback (M = 7.95, SD = 4.83 vs M = the Cyberball paradigm to manipulate as a function of belonging was conducted. 15.36, SD = 3.71). No other significant levels of belonging in participants, a 2 A main effect was found for feedback main or interaction effects were found. (feedback type: inclusion vs ostracism) x type, F(1, 203) = 154.18, p < .001, ɳ2 = .432. Participants who received ostracism

Table 2. Evaluations of ingroup (i.e., men) and outgroup (i.e., women) members that were to remain private or be shared publicly for participants who received either inclusion or ostracism feedback.

Intergroup Evaluations Feedback Type Nature of Favouritism Ingroup Outgroup N Inclusion Private 158.68 (22.09)** 147.87 (22.29) 53 Public 153.70 (17.36) 147. 94 (21.09) 53 Ostracism Private 147.50 (21.29) 146.76 (21.97) 50 Public 151.02 (20.25)** 132.43 (24.03) 51 Overall 152.82 (20.57)** 143.82 (23.14) 207 Note. Higher scores indicate more positive evaluations. Note. ** p < .005, significantly higher evaluations of ingroup than outgroup.

New Zealand Journal of Psychology Vol. 48, No. 1 April 2019 93

Belonging threats and intergroup discrimination

Ingroup favouritism be shared with the ingroup), will evaluate and are to remain private, the ingroup To assess the extent to which men who the ingroup significantly higher than the remains unaware of any displays of received either inclusion or ostracism outgroup. This hypothesis was not favouritism. As such these responses have feedback differentially evaluated supported. Men who received ostracism no chance of increasing their acceptance members of the ingroup (i.e., men) and feedback and shared their intergroup status within the group and thus we do not outgroup (i.e., women) either publicly or evaluations publicly did evaluate the see the same levels of ingroup privately, a 2 (feedback type: inclusion vs ingroup significantly more positively favouritism. ostracism) x 2 (nature of favouritism: than the outgroup, as expected. Men who Men who receive inclusion feedback private vs public) x 2 (target group: received inclusion feedback and shared show a different pattern of results than ingroup vs outgroup) mixed model their evaluations publicly, and men who men who received ostracism feedback. ANOVA was conducted. The first two received ostracism feedback and their Privately, included men unexpectedly variables were between groups. The third evaluations remained private, did not show significant levels of ingroup variable was within groups. Cell means significantly differentiate between the favouritism. It may be that the inclusion are presented in Table 2. ingroup and the outgroup in their feedback fosters feelings of respect, A significant main effect was found for intergroup evaluations, also as expected. reassurance, and satisfaction with respect target group, F(1, 203) = 18.27, p < .001, Somewhat unexpected, however, was the to one's position in the group. Such ɳ2 =.083. Overall, participants evaluated fact that men whose evaluations remained feelings may have, in turn, resulted in ingroup members (i.e., men) more private and who received inclusion group members acting in accordance with positively than outgroup members (i.e., feedback did evaluate the ingroup more group norms (Smith & Tyler, 2007), women; M = 152.82, SD = 20.57 vs M = positively than the outgroup. being supportive of other in-group 143.82, SD = 23.14). A significant main With respect to men who received members (Schmitt & Branscombe, 2001), effect was also found for Cyberball ostracism feedback, the ostracised men in and showing in-group favoritism feedback, F(1, 203) = 13.15, p < .001, ɳ2 the private bias task condition did not (Leonardelli & Brewer, 2001; Spears, = .061. Included participants gave discriminate, whilst the ostracised men in Ellemers, Doosje, & Branscombe, 2006). evaluations that were overall more the public condition did. This supports This ingroup favouritism is not present, positive than evaluations given by theories of intergroup discrimination however, when included men were to ostracised participants (M = 152.05, SD = outlined by Leary (2005; Leary et al., share their evaluations publicly with other 17.13 vs M = 144.43, SD = 12.83). 1995) and Noel et al. (1995). Leary and men. It may well be that in public settings A significant 3-way interaction effect his colleagues argue that people who are these men fall back on a general social was found between feedback type, nature motivated to increase their inclusionary norm of fairness. This tendency to of favouritism, and target group, F(1, status (e.g., people whose acceptance by discriminate when evaluations were to 203) = 7.441, p = .007, ɳ2 = .035. Planned the group has been threatened) will try to remain private may have been restrained comparisons using repeated measures t- increase their value to the group (Leary, by a reluctance to behave in a way tests (and incorporating the Bonferroni- 2005; Leary et al., 1995). One way this potentially construed as discriminatory Holm correction) revealed that included might be achieved is through intergroup (in this case, sexist). Whilst the social participants whose evaluations remained differentiation where the ingroup is norm of fairness in a public context may private (M = 158.68, SD = 22.09 vs M = favoured over the outgroup. Noel et al. be overridden by the need to belong in 147.87, SD = 22.29), t(52) = 3.49, p = (1995) suggests that showing intergroup certain circumstances (as evidenced by .004, and ostracised participants whose bias publicly demonstrates that one is significant levels of ingroup favouritism evaluations were to be shared publicly (M working in the best interests of the group. in public by ostracised males), included = 151.02, SD = 20.25 vs M = 132.43, SD Conceivably, therefore, publicly men have no motivation to act in any way = 24.03), t(50) = 3.25, p = .006, evaluated displaying ingroup favouritism following incongruent with the fairness norm. These the ingroup significantly more positively ostracism feedback may function to men have received inclusion feedback than the outgroup. No significant demonstrate one’s value to the ingroup such that their position within the group is differences between evaluations for the and therefore increase their inclusionary secure, and therefore they are not ingroup versus the outgroup were found status. motivated to publicly display their loyalty for included participants whose The current study reinforces this to the ingroup through ingroup evaluations were to be shared publicly (M proposition. Indeed, following ostracism favouritism. Their belonging needs are = 153.70, SD = 17.36 vs M = 147.94, SD feedback from the ingroup, these men fulfilled, and any public displays of bias = 21.09), t(52) = 1.72, p = .184, nor for have a threatened sense of belonging. offer no benefit. ostracised participants whose evaluations When their intergroup evaluations are to Clearly the behavioural outcomes were to remain private (M = 147.50, SD be shared publicly, they have an examined in this study (intergroup = 21.29 vs M = 146.76, SD = 21.97), t(49) opportunity to show other ingroup evaluations) are vastly different from = .175, p = .862. No other significant members that they are worthy and deserve those that occurred in Christchurch on main or interaction effects were found. to be accepted into the group. They favour March 15. It is key to note that the present the ingroup as an attempt to demonstrate study examines how men might publicly DISCUSSION their commitment and loyalty to the favour the ingroup following belonging This study tested one hypothesis; that ingroup, and therefore convince other threat, opposed to the public violence only participants who wish to increase group members to accept them. The exhibited against an outgroup on March their inclusionary status within the group public context of their evaluations offers 15. Comparatively, favouring an ingroup (i.e., ostracised participants), and believe hope for a chance of acceptance in the via intergroup evaluations is fairly mild. there is a reasonable chance to do so (i.e., future (Jetten et al., 2003). When their Previous research has suggested that such any displays of ingroup favouritism will evaluations are not to be shared publicly intergroup evaluations may be unrelated

New Zealand Journal of Psychology Vol. 48, No. 1 April 2019 94

Belonging threats and intergroup discrimination to more negative forms of discrimination potentially be true for belonging also. the only possible motivation of such (e.g., blasts of white noise, or the Therefore, we must be extremely careful behaviour, nor that this was necessarily allocation of hot sauce; Struch & when drawing any conclusions that a related to what motivated the events of Schwartz, 1989). It has also been threat to belonging may have been a March 15. But the present findings point suggested that explanatory constructs contributing factor to what motivated the to threatened belonging as a potential (e.g., group identity, self-esteem) that are events of March 15. explanation of why intergroup associated with milder forms of Nevertheless, the present findings do discrimination might occur in some intergroup discrimination may be contribute to a growing body of research contexts. If we can begin to understand unrelated to more negative forms of suggesting that a threatened sense of why something is happening, there is a discrimination (Amoit & Bourhis, 2005; belonging may indeed motivate displays possibility we can work together to Hodson, Dovidio, & Esses, 2003). As this of intergroup discrimination (or at least prevent its reoccurrence in the future. is true for some constructs, it may ingroup favouritism). By no means is this

References Journal of Personality and Social British Journal of Social Psychology, Aberson, C. L., Healy, M., & Romero, V. Psychology, 88(5), 801. 44(3), 329-353. (2000). Ingroup bias and self-esteem: A Grieve, P. G., & Hogg, M. A. (1999). Hunter, J. A., Kypri, K., Stokell, N. M., meta-analysis. Personality and Social Subjective uncertainty and intergroup Boyes, M., O'Brien, K. S., & Psychology Review, 4, 157-173. discrimination in the minimal group McMenamin, K. E. (2004). Social Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (1988). situation. Personality and Social identity, self‐evaluation and in‐group Comments on the motivational status of Psychology Bulletin, 25(8), 926-940. bias: The relative importance of particular self-esteem in social identity and Hayhurst, J., Iversen, G., Ruffman, T., domains of self‐esteem to the in‐group. intergroup discrimination. European Stringer, M., & Hunter, J. A. (2014). British Journal of Social Psychology, Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 317- Perceived control and in-group 43(1), 59-81. 334. evaluations. In T. Draper (Ed.), Hunter, J. A., Platow, M. J., Howard, M. L., Amiot, C.E., & Bourhis,R.Y. Psychology of Prejudice: New Research & Stringer, M. (1996). Social identity and (2005).Ideological beliefs as determinants (pp. 191-202). New York: Nova. Hogg, intergroup evaluative bias: Realistic of discrimination in positive and negative M. A. & Abrams, D. (1993). Towards a categories and domain specific self‐ outcome distributions. European Journal single-process uncertainty-reduction esteem in a conflict setting. European of Social Psychology, 35, 581–598. model of social motivation in groups. In Journal of Social Psychology, 26(4), 631- Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). M. A. Hogg & D. Abrams (Eds.), Group 647. The need to belong: desire for Motivation: Social Psychology Jetten, J., Branscombe, N. R., Spears, R., & interpersonal attachments as a Perspectives (pp. 173-190). London: McKimmie, B. M. (2003). Predicting the fundamental human Harvester/ Wheatsheaf. paths of peripherals: The interaction of motivation. Psychological Hewstone, M., & Cairns, E. (2001). Social identification and future bulletin, 117(3), 497. psychology and intergroup conflict. In D. possibilities. Personality and Social Branscombe, N. R., & Wann, D. L. (1994). Chirot & M. E. P. Seligman Psychology Bulletin, 29(1), 130-140. Collective self-esteem consequences of (Eds.), Ethnopolitical warfare: Causes, Lakin, J. L., & Chartrand, T. L. (2005). outgroup derogation when a valued social consequences, and possible solutions (pp. Exclusion and nonconscious behavioral identity is on trial. European Journal of 319-342). Washington, DC, US: mimicry. The social outcast: Ostracism, Social Psychology, 24, 641-657. American Psychological Association. social exclusion, rejection, and bullying, Brewer, M. B. (1991). The Social Self: On DOI: 10.1037/10396-020 279-295. being the same and different at the same Hodson, G., Dovidio, J. F., & Esses, V. M. Leary, M. R. (2005). Sociometer theory and time. Personality and Social Psychology (2003). Ingroup identification as a the pursuit of relational value: Getting to Bulletin, 17(5), 475-482. moderator of positive–negative the root of self-esteem. European review Cruwys, T., Haslam, S. A., Dingle, G. A., asymmetry in social of social psychology, 16(1), 75-111. Haslam, C., & Jetten, J. (2014). discrimination. European Journal of Leary, M. R., Tambor, E. S., Terdal, S. K., Depression and social identity: An Social Psychology, 33(2), 215-233. & Downs, D. L. (1995). Self-esteem as an integrative review. Personality and Social Hogg, M. A. & Abrams, D. (1993). Towards interpersonal monitor: The sociometer Psychology Review, 18(3), 215-238. a single-process uncertainty-reduction hypothesis. Journal of personality and Duckitt, J. (2001). A dual-process model of social motivation in groups. In social psychology, 68(3), 518. cognitive-motivational theory of ideology M. A. Hogg & D. Abrams (Eds.), Group Leonardelli, G. J., & Brewer, M. B. (2001). and prejudice. In Advances in Motivation: Social Psychology Minority and majority discrimination: experimental social psychology (Vol. 33, Perspectives (pp. 173-190). London: When and why. Journal of Experimental pp. 41-113). Academic Press. Harvester/ Wheatsheaf. Social Psychology, 37(6), 468-485. Fein, S., & Spencer, S. J. (1997). Prejudice Houston, D. M., & Andreopoulou, A. Long, K., & Spears, R. (1997). The self- as self-image maintenance: Affirming the (2003). Tests of both corollaries of social esteem hypothesis revisited: self through derogating others. Journal of identity’s self-esteem hypothesis in real Differentiation and the disaffected. Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), group settings. British Journal of Social Moscovici, S., & Paicheler, G. (1978). 31. Psychology, 42, 357-370. Social comparison and social recognition: Fiske, S. T. (2004). Intent and ordinary bias: Hunter, J. A., Cox, S. L., O'Brien, K., Two complementary processes of Unintended thought and social motivation Stringer, M., Boyes, M., Banks, M., identification. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), create casual prejudice. Social Justice Hayhurst, J. G. & Crawford, M. (2005). Differentiation between social groups Research, 17(2), 117-127. Threats to group value, domain‐specific (pp. 251-266). London: Academic Press. Gramzow, R. H., & Gaertner, L. (2005). self‐esteem and intergroup discrimination Noel, J. G., Wann, D. L., & Branscombe, N. Self-esteem and favouritism toward novel amongst minimal and national groups. R. (1995). Peripheral ingroup in-groups: The self as an evaluative base. membership status and public negativity

New Zealand Journal of Psychology Vol. 48, No. 1 April 2019 95

Belonging threats and intergroup discrimination

toward outgroups. Journal of personality social psychology of intergroup relations and social psychology, 68, 127-127. (pp. 33-49). California: Brooks/Cole Oakes, P. J., Haslam, A., & Turner, J. C., Publishing Company. (1994). Stereotyping and Social Reality. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social Oxford: Blackwell. identity theory of intergroup behavior. In Oakes, P. J., & Turner, J. C. (1980). Social S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), categorization and intergroup behavior. Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd Does minimal intergroup discrimination ed., pp. 7-25). Chicago: Nelson-Hall make social identity more positive? Publishers. European Journal of Social Psychology. Turner, J. C. (1999). Some current issues in 10, 295-301. research on social identity and self- Platow, M. J., McClintock, C. G., & categorization theories. In. N. Ellemers, Liebrand, W. B. (1990). Predicting R. Spears & B. Doojse (Eds.), Social intergroup fairness and ingroup bias in the identity: context, commitment, content minimal group paradigm. (3), 221-239. (pp. 6-34). Oxford: Blackwell. Rubin, M., & Hewstone, M. (1998). Social Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., identity theory's self-esteem hypothesis: Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). A review and some suggestions for Rediscovering the social group: A self- clarification. Personality and Social categorization theory. Oxford: Blackwell. Psychology Review, 2, 40-62. Verkuyten, M., & Hagendoorn, L. (2002). Scheepers, D., Spears, R., Manstead, A. S., In-group favoritism and self-esteem: The & Doosje, B. (2009). The influence of role of identity level and trait discrimination and fairness on collective valence. Group Processes & Intergroup self-esteem. Personality and Social Relations, 5(4), 285-297. Psychology Bulletin, 35(4), 506-515. Warburton, W. A., Williams, K. D., & Schmitt, M. T., & Branscombe, N. R. Cairns, D. R. (2006). When ostracism (2001). The good, the bad, and the manly: leads to aggression: The moderating Effects of threats to one's prototypicality effects of control deprivation. Journal of on evaluations of in-group members. Experimental Social Psychology, 42(2), Journal of Experimental Social 213-220. Noel, J. G., Wann, D. L., & Psychology, 37, 510–517. Branscombe, N. R. (1995). Peripheral Sheldon, K. M., & Bettencourt, B. A. ingroup membership status and public (2002). Psychological need‐satisfaction negativity toward outgroups. Journal of and subjective well‐being within social personality and social psychology, 68, groups. British Journal of Social 127-127. Psychology, 41(1), 25-38. Williams K. D. (2009). Ostracism: A Smith, H. J., & Tyler, T. R. (2007). temporal need-threat model. Advances in Choosing the right pond: The impact of experimental psychology, 41, 275-314. group membership on self-esteem and Williams, K. D., Cheung, C. K. T., & Choi, group-oriented behaviour. Journal of W. (2000). Cyberostracism: Effects of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, being ignored over the internet. Journal of 146–170. Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), Solomon, S., Greenberg, J., & Pyszczynski, 748-762. T. (2000). Pride and prejudice: Fear of Williams, K. D., & Sommer, K. L. (1997). death and social behavior. Current Social ostracism by coworkers: Does Directions in Psychological Science, 9, rejection lead to loafing or compensation? 200-204. Personality and Social Psychology Spears, R., Ellemers, N., Doosje, B., & Bulletin, 23(7), 693-706. Branscombe, N. (2006). The individual within the group: Respect (pp. 175–195). In T. Postmes, & J. Jetten (Eds.), Individuality and the group: Advances in social identity. London: Sage. Struch, N., & Schwartz, S. H. (1989). Intergroup aggression: Its predictors and distinctiveness from in-group favouritism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 364–373 Tajfel, H. (1978). Social categorization, social identity and social comparison. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup Relations (pp. 61-76). London: Academic Press. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The

New Zealand Journal of Psychology Vol. 48, No. 1 April 2019 96