amiot e bouris, 2005

8/3/2019 Amiot e Bouris, 2005

1/18

European Journal of Social Psychology

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 35, 581598 (2005)

Published online 11 November 2004 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.238

Ideological beliefs as determinants of discrimination in positiveand negative outcome distributions

CATHERINE E. AMIOT AND

RICHARD Y. BOURHIS*

Universite du Quebec a` Montreal, Canada

Abstract

Social identity theory proposes that discrimination contributes favourably to group members social

identity. In minimal group paradigm (MGP) studies involving positive outcome distributions (e.g.

money), discrimination is associated with a more positive social identity. But studies on the positive-

negative asymmetry effect show that categorization leads to less discrimination when negative (salary

cuts) than when positive outcomes (salary increases) are distributed. Using structural equation

modelling, this study (N 279) tested whether discrimination involving negative outcome distribu-

tions could contribute as much to group members positive social identity as discrimination on positive

outcomes. The study also tested if ideological beliefs (i.e. social dominance orientation, authoritar-

ianism), measured one month before the MGP experiment, could predict positive and negative

outcome discrimination. While the fit of the hypothesized model was adequate, only social dominance

orientation predicted both positive and negative outcome discrimination. Also, discrimination on

positive outcomes but not on negative ones contributed to positive social identity. Copyright# 2004John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

It is one thing to explain why group members seek to benefit their own group more than out-groups,

but it is quite another to account for why some people are interested in discriminating by imposing

more harmful outcomes on out-group others. A growing number of researchers have proposed

conceptual models combining intrapersonal, interpersonal, intergroup, and ideological levels of

explanation to better account for different types of discriminatory behaviours (Doise, 1986; Taylor

& Moghaddam, 1995). The present study combines two levels of analysis to explain discrimination on

positive vs. negative outcome distributions: the intergroup level, using social identity theory (SIT), and

the ideological level, via belief structures such as social dominance orientation (SDO) and right-wing

authoritarianism (RWA). The main goal of this study was to explore the role of ideological beliefs and

social identity processes as complementary accounts of discriminatory behaviours on positive vs.

negative outcome distributions.

Received 9 February 2004

Copyright# 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 25 June 2004

*Correspondence to: Dr R. Bourhis, Departement de psychologie, Universite du Quebec a Montreal, PO Box 8888, Succ. CentreVille, Montreal, Quebec, H3C 3P8, Canada. E-mail: [email protected]

Contract/grant sponsor: Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).


2/18

As an intergroup level theory, SIT originated as an explanation of the discrimination effect obtained

in the minimal group paradigm (MGP; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). In a typical minimal group experiment,

members of two arbitrary groups allocate valued resources such as money to anonymous in-group and

out-group members (Tajfel, Flament, Billig, & Bundy, 1971). There is no social interaction within or

between the groups, no instrumental links between individuals responses and their personal self-

interest, and no previous history or relations between the groups (Bourhis, Turner, & Gagnon, 1997).

Although these procedures were designed to eliminate classic factors accounting for discrimination,research has shown that categorizing people into us and them is sufficient to foster discriminatory

behaviour (Bourhis & Gagnon, 2001; Brewer, 1979; Diehl, 1990). This mere categorization effect

provides the cognitive basis needed to trigger the motivational processes leading to discriminatory

behaviours.

Social categorization, social identification, social comparison, and the need for a distinct and

positive social identity are the key psychological variables proposed by SIT to account for

discriminatory behaviour within the MGP (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Within this experimental situation,

the arbitrary imposed us-them categorization provides participants with the opportunity to identify as

group members. Degree of in-group identification, the cognitive component of social identity, refers to

the strength of an individuals identification with the in-group, independently of whether the individual

feels positive or negative about this identification (Gagnon & Bourhis, 1996). To the degree that

individuals identify with their in-group in the MGP, desire for a distinct and positive social identity isachieved by seeking favourable comparisons between the in-group and the out-group on the only

available dimension of comparison in the experiment, namely, the distributions of more valued

resources to members of the in-group than to members of the out-group. In line with SIT, recent

reviews have noted significant links between degree of identification to the in-group and discrimina-

tory behaviour (Brown, 2000; Rubin & Hewstone, 1998).

Quality of social identity can be defined as the affective evaluation, positive or negative, of an

individuals group membership (Gagnon & Bourhis, 1996). In their MGP studies using positive

outcome distributions, Perreault and Bourhis (1998, 1999) obtained results showing that quality of

social identity was more positive after group members discriminated than before they engaged in the

resource distribution task. Thus, by discriminating on positive outcome distributions, participants in

MGP studies are able to achieve a more positive social identity. From an SIT perspective,

discrimination within the MGP is seen as functional, fulfilling the need for differentiation from theout-group and contributing to group members positive social identity (Tajfel & Turner, 1986).

THE POSITIVE-NEGATIVE ASYMMETRY EFFECT AND POSITIVE SOCIAL IDENTITY

Brewer (1979) noted that the distinction between in-group favouritism and out-group derogation is not

always present in classic MGP research so it is often ambiguous whether the comparison rests on

enhancement of the in-group, devaluation of the out-group, or both (p. 321). Mummendey and Otten

(1998) noted that most MGP studies have focused on group members distribution of positive

outcomes such as giving money or symbolic points to in-group and out-group members. The question

is whether the conditions sufficient to elicit discrimination in the distribution of positive outcomes can

function equivalently for discrimination involving negative outcome distributions such as inflicting

punishments, imposing extra hours of unpaid work, or enforcing salary cuts.

Over 20 studies were conducted by the Mummendey research group to investigate the differential

allocation of positive vs. negative outcome distributions (Mummendey & Otten, 1998). Generally,

582 Catherine E. Amiot and Richard Y. Bourhis

Copyright# 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 35, 581598 (2005)


3/18

findings demonstrated that categorization per se leads to less discriminatory behaviour when negative

outcomes are distributed than when positive outcomes are distributed (Buhl, 1999). This phenomenon

was identified as the positive-negative asymmetry effect (PNAE). But beyond the absolute amount of

discrimination manifested when positive vs. negative outcomes are distributed between group

members, the underlying psychological processes involved when distributing positive and negative

outcomes remain to be investigated. For instance, within the PNAE, can discrimination involving

negative outcome distributions contribute as much to group members positive social identity as wasfound to be the case for discrimination involving positive outcomes? In his analysis, Buhl (1999) noted

that SIT does not take into account whether the dimension of comparison contributing to positive

social identity is made up of desirable or aversive outcome distributions (Mummendey, 1995).

Different processes may account for discrimination on positive vs. negative outcome distributions.

Based on an elaboration of the perceptual differentiation hypothesis first proposed by Doise (1976),

one could expect group members to be mainly concerned with the distribution of outcomes in a

manner that allows for the in-group and the out-group to receive different allocations, regardless of the

valence of the outcomes being distributed. In line with this perceptual differentiation hypothesis, one

could expect that discrimination on negative and positive outcome distributions may contribute

equally to a perceptual differentiation between the in-group and the out-group, thus leading in both

cases to a more positive social identity.

However, discrimination on negative outcome distributions is often perceived as being even lesssocially desirable and less normatively appropriate than discrimination on positive outcome distribu-

tions (Amiot & Bourhis, 2003; Blanz, Mummendey, & Otten, 1997). Harming the out-group more than

the in-group involves an undesirable dimension of intergroup comparison, which is unlikely to

contribute to positive social identity. Thus, according to the discrimination valence hypothesis,

discrimination on negative outcome distributions should be less likely to contribute to positive in-

group identity than discrimination on positive outcome distributions. Although recent MGP studies

have shown that discrimination on positive outcome distributions are associated with a more positive

social identity (Gagnon & Bourhis, 1996; Perreault & Bourhis, 1998), the effect of negative outcome

discrimination on the quality of in-group identity remains to be investigated. The first goal of this study

was thus to explore the relative merit of the perceptual differentiation vs. discrimination valence

hypotheses as competing processes underlying discrimination on positive vs. negative outcome

distributions.

IDEOLOGICAL BELIEFS, DISCRIMINATION, AND THE PNAE

Whereas studying the associations between positive and negative discrimination on group members

quality of social identity allows one to tap into the consequences of these discriminatory behaviours,

investigating the antecedent variables predicting the manifestation of positive and negative discrimi-

nation is also of importance. In such a context, are some individuals more prone to discriminate on

both positive and negative outcome distributions? As a second goal, the present investigation seeks to

identify the ideological beliefs that predict both positive and negative discrimination.

Recently, Duckitt (2001) as well as Guimond, Dambrun, Michinov, and Duarte (2003) argued that

while a tradition of research has considered authoritarianism and SDO as stable personality traits,

these intraindividual constructs can be more adequately understood in terms of ideological beliefs.

Duckitt, Wagner, du Plessis, and Birum (2002) also propose that ideological beliefs are analogous to

motivational goals schemas, which can become more or less salient depending on the specific context.

Indeed, the RWA and Facism scales have been shown to be highly reactive to situational threat

Ideological beliefs and discrimination 583



4/18

manipulations (Duckitt et al., 2002; see also Guimond et al., 2003, for the moderating role of

ideological beliefs in specific contexts). In the present context, both positive and negative outcome

distributions may be likely to reflect ideological beliefs about how outcomes should be distributed

between group members. Respondents endorsement of relevant ideological beliefs assessed one

month priorto the conduct of the MGP study will be used to test whether such ideological beliefs can

predict discriminatory behaviour on both positive and negative outcome distributions.

Ideological beliefs such as authoritarianism (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford,1950) or RWA (Altemeyer, 1998) as well as SDO (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994) have

been consistently linked to intergroup attitudes and behaviours. While RWA has been labelled as a

submissive authoritarianism and SDO as a dominant authoritarianism, these two ideological beliefs

show weak to moderate correlations with one another and have been associated with distinct correlates

(for reviews, see Altemeyer, 1998; Pratto, 1999).

As proposed by Altemeyer (1998), right-wing authoritarians believe in submission to established

authorities and the social norms these authorities endorse, even if these norms involve aggression.

According to Whitley (1999), people high in authoritarianism tend to organize their worldviews in

terms of in-groups and out-groups and perceive members of out-groups as threatening the traditional

values authoritarians hold dear (p. 126). There is also a strong body of research showing that RWA

can predict racism and prejudice against visible and low-status out-groups (Adorno et al., 1950;

Altemeyer, 1988, 1998; Duckitt, 2001; Duckitt et al., 2002; Duriez & van Hiel, 2002). Within anintergroup experiment using a modified version of the MGP, Altemeyer (1994) found that individuals

scoring high on authoritarianism rated their minimal in-group more positively than did individuals

scoring low on authoritarianism. There is also some evidence for the association between authoritar-

ianism and discrimination involving negative outcome distributions, revealing that highly authoritar-

ian individuals were more punitive and aggressive than low authoritarians (Christie, 1993). Elms and

Milgram (1966) found that authoritarianism was the only ideological belief associated with destructive

obedience, a result also obtained in a learning study conducted by Altemeyer (1988). Finally,

according to Altemeyer (1998), submissive authoritarians tend to see the world as a dangerous place,

which triggers fear and instigates aggression in them (see also Duckitt, 2001). Combined with their

tendency to be self-righteous, submissive authoritarians would appear prone to manifesting both

positive and negative outcome discrimination in the context of the MGP. We thus expect that the more

group members endorse authoritarianism (RWA), the more they should discriminate on both positiveand negative outcome distributions in the MGP.

SDO is defined as the tendency to consider ones own primary in-group to be better than, superior

to, and dominant over relevant out-groups (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). According to Pratto et al. (1994),

high-SDO individuals are theorized to be relatively conservative, racist, ethnocentric, and prejudiced,

and they should show little empathy for lower status others (p. 744). Studies have shown a strong

relationship between SDO and both prejudice and racism (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Social dominance

theory (SDT) has made explicit suggestions about how SDO could be linked to discrimination

involving out-group derogation and negative outcome distributions. According to Sidanius, Pratto, and

Mitchell (1994), the desire to actively oppress out-groups has been given a central role within SDT. In

fact, SDT proposes that oppressive forms of intergroup behaviours (i.e. ethnic cleansings, lynchings)

reflect more a desire to actively dominate and oppress out-groups than a motivation to benefit the in-

group and improve positive in-group identity. Thus, SDT appears well-suited to account for the

dominance motives underlying the distribution of both positive and negative outcome distributions.

In line with such analyses, a number of questionnaire studies have shown that high SDO individuals

have a propensity for cruelty (Altemeyer, 1998), while also being more likely to support punitive policies

(Sidanius, Liu, Shaw, & Pratto, 1994). In a MGP study, Sidanius, Pratto et al. (1994) found that high and

low SDO individuals displayed different affective reactions to the out-group. High SDO individuals




5/18

reported a greater desire for social distance from out-group members while also claiming less willingness

to cooperate with out-group than in-group members. In another MGP study, Federico (1998, Study 2)

found that among high status group members, SDO was positively associated with evaluative favouritism

for their in-group (i.e. using positive adjectives), while this relationship was not significant among low

status group members. Although these MGP studies reveal that low and high SDO individuals differ in

their affective and evaluative reactions toward minimal in-group and out-group members, SDO remains to

be associated with actual discriminatory behaviour on both positive and negative outcome distributions. Inthis regard, we expect that the more group members endorse the SDO, the more they should discriminate

on both positive and negative outcome distributions in the MGP.

THE PRESENT STUDY

The first aim of this study was to explore how discrimination on positive vs. negative outcome

distributions could affect group members quality of social identity. According to the perceptual

differentiation hypothesis, it is predicted that discrimination on both positive and negative outcome

distributions should lead to a more positive social identity. However, the discrimination valence

hypothesis predicts that discrimination on positive outcomes should contribute to positive socialidentity while discrimination on negative outcome distributions should not be related to a more

positive social identity. The second goal of the study was to test whether different ideological beliefs

assessed one month before the conduct of the MGP experiment can predict discrimination involving

both positive and negative outcome distributions. The ideological beliefs hypothesis proposes that

RWA and SDO should predict discrimination involving the distribution of both positive and negative

outcome distributions.

METHOD

Participants

Two-hundred-and-seventy-nine college students (194 women, 84 men, one participant did not report

his/her gender) from a French language college (CEGEP) in Montreal participated in the two parts of

the study. In Quebec, students must complete a two-year college programme at the CEGEP level

before being eligible to apply as undergraduates at the university level. Most respondents were social

science college students while none were enrolled in a business programme. The mean age of the

students who took part in the study was 18.2 years old ( SD 0.72, range 1724 years old). None of

the Quebec Francophone participants included in the study were members of a visible minority group.

Design

Part 1 of the study involved the completion of a questionnaire assessing participants ideological

beliefs, while the second part, conducted a month later, involved a standard MGP experiment. In the

first part of the study, CEGEP students were recruited during class time and were told that the

questionnaire dealt with the validation of a number of psychological scales. Ostensibly, the study was

presented as being conducted by a team of researchers from the Psychology Department of one of the




6/18

two Francophone universities in Montreal. The questionnaire consisted of various scales including

SDO and authoritarianism (RWA). Just over a month after this first study, the MGP experiment was

conducted during class time with the same students. This MGP experiment was allegedly unrelated to

the previous study as participants were recruited by a female experimenter from the other Francophone

university in Montreal. The experimenter presented herself as a graduate student in industrial/

organizational psychology interested in the study of decision-making processes involved in the

context of mergers and acquisitions. This procedure insured that respondents had no reason to surmisethat their participation in the MGP study was at all related to a study conducted by researchers from

another university one month earlier.

Three independent variables were manipulated in the MGP experiment. First, half the respondents

distributed salaries, while the other half distributed hours of unpaid work, making this a between-

subjects factor. Second, the valence of the outcomes distributed, a within-subjects factor, was

manipulated. This was made possible by asking participants in the salary distribution condition to

distribute both salary increases and salary cuts. Participants in the unpaid work condition distributed

both increases and cuts in hours of work. Based on the taxonomy of discriminatory behaviours

proposed by Mummendey (1995; Amiot & Bourhis, 2003), positive outcomes were conceptualized as

either salary increases or cuts in unpaid hours of work. Negative outcomes were conceptualized as

either cuts in salaries or increases in unpaid hours of work. Finally, the order of the outcomes

distributed was manipulated so as to counterbalance the design. Group members in the order 1condition first allocated positive outcome distributions then allocated negative outcomes. Group

members in the order 2 condition first allocated negative outcomes then allocated positive outcomes

between group members. This third independent variable was a between-subjects factor.

Procedures Used in the MGP Experiment

Participants in the MGP experiment were instructed that for the purpose of the decision-making task, they

would be randomly divided into two groups. Ostensibly, the outcome of a coin toss performed privately

by each respondent in the presence of the experimenter determined their group membership in group K or

group W of the newly merged corporation. Respondents were in fact randomly assigned to their group,

and arrangements were made for group memberships to remain anonymous throughout the entire MGPexperiment. The experimenter explained that because the study was concerned with decision-making with

minimum information, participants would allocate outcomes to anonymous in-group and out-group others

but never to themselves. These procedures represent the standard method used to eliminate self-interest as

a motive in minimal group experiments (Bourhis, Sachdev, & Gagnon, 1994).

Before each outcome distribution, participants were told that they would be making decisions about

the distribution of salary increases or reductions in hours of unpaid work (in the positive outcome

allocation phase) and salary cuts or increases in unpaid hours of work (in the negative outcome phase).

It was made clear that salary distributions did not involve variations in quantity or quality of work, and

that hours of work distributions did not involve variations in salaries.

The outcome distributions were justified by informing participants that such distributions took place in

the context of a recent corporate merger. Participants were told that group K and group W were branches

of the same merged organization and that, because of the organizational changes, they were asked to

decide how outcomes should be distributed between these two branches. Negative outcome distributions

were legitimized by specifying that when mergers are not well planned, a decrease in corporate efficiency

and a drop in financial assets can occur. For the sake of insuring a successful merger, it becomes necessary

for the corporation to impose salary cuts and increases in hours of unpaid work on its employees. Positive

outcome distributions were justified by specifying that when mergers are well planned, an increase in




7/18

efficiency and profit can follow, leading the corporation to provide employees with salary increases and

reductions in hours of work with no loss in salary. Participants were instructed to imagine themselves as

decision-makers within their respective corporate branch (K or W), which had just completed the

corporate merger. Due to variations in profits following the merger, participants were asked to distribute

resources to anonymous members of the K and W branches using the Tajfel matrices. At the very end of

the minimal group study, respondents completed a scale measuring the quality of their social identity as

members of their respective corporate branches.The instructional set was constructed to insure experimental realism, encourage the emotional

involvement of the participants, and minimize the social desirability responses associated with the

negative outcome distribution task. In both parts of the study, participants were informed that they were

free to end their participation at any time. They were informed that there was no wrong or right answer

when completing the questionnaires and their outcome distributions booklets. They were assured that

their answers would remain anonymous and confidential and would serve for research purposes only. For

matching purposes, participants were asked to indicate their date of birth on both the part 1 ideological

beliefs questionnaire, and on the part 2 response booklets completed during the MGP experiment one

month later. At the end of the second part of the study, participants were fully debriefed.

Measures

Ideological Beliefs

In part 1 of the study, respondents completed the SDO and the RWA scales using a 7-point Likert scale

ranging from do not agree at all to agree completely. Using a back translation procedure, the SDO

scale (Pratto et al., 1994) was translated from English to French. Previous studies using the 16-item

English language SDO scale have found it to be both reliable and valid (Pratto et al., 1994; Sidanius &

Pratto, 1999). In the present study only the eight-item hierarchy-enhancing (i.e. group-based

dominance) subscale was used given our interest in beliefs pertaining to group inequality and

intergroup derogation. Doing so was justified on the basis of evidence from confirmatory factor

analyses suggesting a factorial distinction between hierarchy-enhancing and hierarchy-attenuating

(i.e. equality) components of the SDO scale (Jost & Thompson, 2000). In the present study, thereliability of the French language SDO hierarchy-enhancing subscale was acceptable (Cronbach

alpha 0.78). Authoritarianism was assessed using a 16-item French-language version of the RWA

scale (RWA; Altemeyer, 1998). For computation purposes, negatively-worded items were reversed so

that all items indicate greater authoritarianism. The reliability obtained for this French language RWA

scale was acceptable (Cronbach alpha 0.72).

Tajfel Matrices

Adapted Tajfel matrices were used to assess group members distributions of positive and negative

outcomes in the MGP experiment. Although other matrices have been used to monitor resource

distribution strategies (e.g. Gaertner & Insko, 2001, Study 2), the present study adopted the Tajfel

matrices as they have been found to tap peoples social orientations in a valid, reliable and sensitive

manner (Bourhis & Gagnon, 2001; Bourhis, Gagnon, & Sachdev, 1997; Brown, Tajfel, & Turner,

1980; Diehl, 1990; Messick & Mackie, 1989; Turner, 1980, 1983). Four basic strategies are measured

using the Tajfel matrices (for more complete information on the use and scoring of the Tajfel matrices,

see Bourhis et al., 1994). Parity (P) represents a choice that awards an equal amount of outcomes,




8/18

whether they be positive or negative, to in-group and out-group recipients. Maximum in-group profit

(MIP) represents a choice that awards the highest absolute amount of positive outcomes to in-group

recipients regardless of awards made to out-group others. When distributing negative outcomes,

opting for this strategy involves awarding the minimal amount of negative outcomes to in-group

recipients regardless of negative outcomes distributed to out-group others. When distributing positive

outcomes, maximum differentiation (MD) is a discrimination strategy that maximizes the difference in

outcomes awarded to two recipients, the difference being in favour of the in-group member but at thecost of sacrificing absolute in-group profit. When distributing negative outcomes, MD is a strategy that

maximizes the difference of negative outcomes distributed to the two recipients, the difference being

in favour of the in-group member but at the cost of sustaining greater negative outcomes to the in-

group. When used in positive outcome distributions, maximum joint profit (MJP) is a choice that

maximizes the total amount of outcomes distributed to both in-group and out-group recipients. When

used in negative outcome distributions, the MJP strategy minimizes the total amount of negative

outcomes distributed to both in-group and out-group recipients.

In this MGP experiment, three matrix types designed to assess discriminatory strategies were used.

The first matrix type compared the strength of in-group favouritism (FAV) on P: FAVon P. FAV is made

up of the strategies of MIP and MD: FAV MIPMD. The second matrix type pitted FAV against

MJP: FAV on MJP. The third matrix compared MD against combined MIP and MJP: MD on

MIPMJP. Each matrix type was presented once in its original form (in-group/out-group) andonce in its reverse form (out-group/in-group) to obtain pull scores. Each of these strategies was used in

both positive and negative outcome distributions. In total, this resulted in six matrix presentations for

the positive outcome distributions and another six matrix presentations for the negative outcome

distributions. In the present study, each pull score had a theoretical range from 6 to 6. The order of

presentation of each matrix within the booklet was randomized for each respondent. The Cronbach

alphas obtained for these three discrimination matrices were satisfactory, both when positive (0.83)

and when negative outcomes (0.80) were distributed.

Given that positive and negative outcomes should have similar psychological weights, care was

taken to achieve economic equivalence of salary distributions and hours of unpaid work distributions.

Equivalence was achieved using national statistics pertaining to the average pay earned, as well as the

average number of hours worked by employees whose education profile matched that of the

respondents who took part in the experiment (Statistiques Canada, 1999). Based on these statistics,the Tajfel matrices were constructed so as to match salary matrices with hours of work matrices.

Participants also completed a zero-sum distribution where outcomes were distributed to an in-group

opposed to an out-group member. The zero-sum task completed by participants in the salary condition

involved distributing either a salary increase or a salary cut of $100 in weekly pay, while participants

in the hours of work condition distributed either a decrease or an increase of 10 hours in their weekly

work schedule. Hours of work distributions were rescaled so as to match the 100-point scale used for

salary distributions, and negative outcome distributions were reversed so that higher amounts

indicated greater bias in favour of an in-group member as opposed to an out-group member.

Quality of In-group Identification

At the very end of the MGP experiment, respondents completed the quality of social identity scale

using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from not at all to completely. As in previous MGP studies, this

scale was composed of items measuring the extent to which respondents liked being a member of their

own group, and how much they felt at ease and secure as a member of their own group (Gagnon &

Bourhis, 1996; Perreault & Bourhis, 1998). Reliability for this three-item scale was acceptable

(Cronbach alpha 0.91).




9/18

Parcelling of the Items

Parcels of items were formed on the ideological belief scale of authoritarianism and on the group-

based dominance subscale of the SDO scale (Little, Cunningham, Shahar, & Widaman, 2002). Several

reasons underlie the use of parcels for these instruments in the present study. First, in comparison to

individual items, parcels present advantageous psychometric properties. Second, models based on

parcelled data are more parsimonious, have fewer chances for residuals to be correlated, and lead toreductions in various sources of sampling error. Third, parcels can be recommended when the number

of items included in a full model is high, thus allowing for a more optimal variable to sample size ratio

and yielding more stable parameter estimates (see Duckitt et al., 2002, for an application with

ideological beliefs measures). Finally, the present study focused primarily on the relations among

latent variables rather than on the exact relations among the individual items.

With respect to the authoritarianism measure, the procedure taken to regroup items into parcels

involved including, within the same parcel, an equal number of items of different directions of

wording. This procedure reduced systematic error due to method effects such as direction of wording

(Altemeyer, 1988). Each parcel contained either two items (in the case of the group-based dominance

subscale of the SDO scale) or four items (in the case of the authoritarianism scale).

RESULTS

Valence, Stimulus Type and Gender Effects on Resource Distributions in the MGP

An outcome valence by stimulus type by order by sex Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA)

was first conducted to test the effect of the three independent variables composing our experimental

design and of sex on the discrimination matrices and the zero-sum distribution in the MGP part 2

study. Results of this four-way repeated-measures MANOVA did not reveal any significant main or

interaction effect for either order or sex (F ratios ranged from 0.46 to 2.01). The effects obtained for

valence of outcome were not significant. The only significant effect to emerge was the stimulus main

effect. In light of these results, and given the importance of the valence of outcome variable, anoutcome valence by stimulus type repeated-measures MANOVA was next conducted on the four

discrimination measures. As can be seen in Table 1, the main effect for valence was not significant

(F(4, 274) 1.10), suggesting the lack of a PNAE in the present study. While the valence by stimulus

interaction was also non-significant (F(4, 274) 0.47), the main effect for stimulus type was

significant (F(4, 274) 3.59, p< 0.01). At the univariate level, stimulus had a significant effect on

each of the four discrimination measures, revealing a greater use of these strategies when salaries were

distributed than when hours of unpaid work were distributed. Further interpretations for the lack of the

PNAE and for the emergence of the stimulus main effect are presented in the discussion section.1

The mean pull score obtained for each discrimination measure in each experimental condition was

tested for significance. One-sample t-tests (two-tailed) comparing each pull scores on the Tajfel

1Given the significant effect of stimulus type on discriminatory behaviour, hierarchical moderated multiple regressions(HMMRs) were conducted to test for the potential moderating role of stimulus type in each of the six associations tested inthe SEM model. To do so, HMMRs were conducted on each of the three dependent variables (i.e. positive outcomediscrimination, negative outcome discrimination, quality of social identity) (Aiken & West, 1991). Results revealed nosignificant interaction effect. However, stimulus type had a significant main effect in two of the regressions, revealing morepositive as well as more negative outcome discrimination when salary than when hours of unpaid work were distributed. Theseresults replicate those obtained in the MANOVA.




10/18

matrices from zero, and each zero-sum distribution from 50 (i.e. a score of P) were conducted to

determine if these discriminatory strategies were used beyond chance level by participants. In nearly

all experimental conditions, participants made significant use of each of the four discrimination

strategies. Given that group members discriminated significantly on both positive and negative

outcome distributions, we proceeded to investigate whether ideological beliefs could predict the use

of these discriminatory strategies as well as for how discrimination on positive vs. negative outcomedistributions could contribute to positive social identity. These analyses were conducted using

structural equation modelling (SEM).

Descriptive Statistics for the Variables Included in the SEM Model

Table 2 presents the correlations between computed aggregates of the manifest variables included in

the SEM model as well as the means, standard deviations, skewness and kurtosis values for those

computed variables. Univariate normality proved satisfactory and correlations among the variables

suggest the absence of multicollinearity. The statistics for the entire set of manifest variables used in

the model are available from the authors upon request.

Structural Equation Modelling (SEM)

Version 5.7 of the EQS/Windows program was used to test for the validity of the hypothesized SEM

model. Doing so first involved the conduct of confirmatory factor analyses on each of the instruments

Table 1. Mean pull scores of participants distribution strategies as a function of outcome valence and stimulus

Outcome Stimulus Outcomevalence valence by

Outcome valence stimulus

Positive Negative

Stimulus

Salary Cuts in hours Salary Increases in Multivariate testsincreases of work cuts hours of work (4, 274) F

n 133 n 146 1.10 3.59** 0.47

Univariate tests (1, 277) F

FAV on MJP 0.83*** 0.24* 0.76*** 0.29* 0.02 13.25*** 0.36MD on MIPMJP 0.79*** 0.29* 0.61*** 0.15 1.38 8.71** 0.03FAV on P 0.70*** 0.26* 0.71*** 0.46*** 1.00 6.08* 0.84Zero-sum distribution 54.55*** 51.23y 53.55*** 51.48* 0.43 9.43** 1.18

Note: Tajfel matrices range from 6 to 6. Zero-sum distribution: Zero-sum distribution of either $100 or 10 hours of work/week distributed between an in-group and an out-group member. In order to make salary and hours of work comparable onzero-sum distributions, hours of work were multiplied by 10. To allow comparison between positive and negative outcomes,negative outcome distributions were inversed. Therefore, zero-sum scores represent bias in favour of the in-group. On the zero-sum scores, a score of 50 represents P (no bias), while scores departing from 50 and increasing represent a correspondingincrease in in-group bias.***p


11/18

included in the model. All fit indices and parameters obtained in these confirmatory factor analyses

(CFAs) were acceptable. Detailed results of these analyses are available from the first author upon

request.

The maximum likelihood estimation procedure was used to estimate model fit. Given the diversity

of the fit indices available, and in view of the controversies concerning measures of overall fit (Byrne,

1994), several fit indices will be reported. As for the chi-square ratio, it is desirable to obtain a chi-

square that is not significant. But when sample size is large, the chi-square can be significant even

when the difference between the hypothesized and observed covariance matrices is minimal. While it

is generally not valid to use the chi-square ratio to test the null hypothesis of the overall fit, it will be

reported here for sake of convention as well as to allow the comparison of different models. The

standardized RMR represents the average difference between the sample variances and covariances

and the estimated population variances and covariances. The standardized Root Mean Square Residual(RMR) has a range of 0 to 1, where values less than 0.10 are desired. The Root Mean Squared Error of

Approximation (RMSEA) assesses the estimated discrepancy, per degree of freedom, between the

population covariance matrix and the model. Whereas the RMSEA value would be 0 if the fit was

perfect, values smaller than 0.05 indicate a good fit, and values smaller than 0.08 represent a

reasonable fit. The Comparative Fit Index (CFI) compares the chi-square of the estimated model with

the chi-square of a null model. The values of the CFI range from zero to one, with a CFI value

greater than 0.90 serving as the conventional lower cut-off of acceptable fit of the model to the data.

Finally, the parsimony fit index (PCFI) adjusts the CFI to take complexity of the model into account

and varies from 0 to 1. Values equal to or higher than 0.50 are considered acceptable.

The Lagrange Multiplier Test (LM Test) was also used as a guide in identifying parameters initially

constrained to zero that could contribute most to a significantly better fitting model if these parameters

were freely estimated. Post-hoc model fitting was considered appropriate only when there was sound

statistical, theoretical, and empirical justification to do so (Byrne, 1994). To assess the extent to which

a respecified model represents an improvement in fit, the differences in 2 can be used to compare

models. This variation is 2-distributed, with degrees of freedom equal to the difference in degrees of

freedom of the two models. A significant difference in 2 indicates a substantial improvement in

model fit. Finally, the Wald Test was used to identify non-significant parameters.

Table 2. Correlation matrix, means, standard deviations, skewness, and kurtosis for the computed variables ofthe model

Variables Mean SD SK KU 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Social dominance (SDO) 2.23 0.92 0.75 0.26 2. Authoritarianism (RWA) 3.74 0.68 0.17 0.06 0.22 Discrimination: Positive outcomes

3. Discrimination Tajfel matrices 0.51 1.31 0.72 2.31 0.16 0.02 4. Zero-sum 52.82 8.87 1.20 3.38 0.16 0.02 0.77 Discrimination: Negative outcomes5. Discrimination Tajfel matrices 0.49 1.37 0.80 2.92 0.12 0.04 0.37 0.38 6. Zero-sum 52.47 8.84 1.13 3.61 0.11 0.05 0.35 0.41 0.74 7. Positive social identity 4.46 1 .36 0.61 0.09 0.05 0.01 0.19 0.15 0.10 0.04

Note: Correlation coefficients above 0.12 are significant at p


12/18

The Hypothesized Model

The hypothesized full model to be tested is presented in Figure 1. In line with the ideological beliefs

hypothesis, it was anticipated that SDO and RWA would each predict discrimination on both positive

and negative outcome distributions. The two ideological beliefs were also hypothesized to correlate

with one another. The perceptual differentiation hypothesis predicted positive links between

discrimination on positive and negative outcome distributions and positive social identity. Althoughthe discrimination valence hypothesis predicted the absence of a significant relationship between

discrimination on negative outcome and positive social identity, this relation was nevertheless tested in

the model to determine its exact strength. Finally, the residuals representing the error of prediction of

all regression equations were hypothesized to be significant, and the covariance between these

residuals was hypothesized to be zero.

Goodness-of-fit values were as follows: 2 (145) 314.60, p< 0.001, CFI 0.929, RMR 0.099,

RMSEA 0.065 (confidence interval 0.0550.074), PCFI 0.788. Examination of the multivariate

LM 2 coefficients revealed improvement in model fit to be gained from the additional specification of a

structural path between the two discrimination factors or by adding cross-loadings between parcels or

items and factors to which they did not originally belong. Because of the already adequate fit of the model

to the data, and because of the lack of theoretical and empirical evidence supporting the modifications

proposed by the LM Test, it was decided not to add any parameters to the model. Doing so also enhancesthe potential replicability of the present model and minimizes the problem of capitalization on chance.

Analyses of power within the context of analysis of covariance structure revealed adequate levels of

power for the model tested (power 0.999; MacCallum, Browne, & Sugawara, 1996).

Although presenting an acceptable fit to the data, this model presented three non-significant

parameters, which were also identified by the Wald Test. As can be seen on Figure 1, authoritarianism

was not significantly related to discriminatory behaviour on positive or negative outcome distributions.

Only SDO predicted both positive and negative outcome discrimination, thus providing partial support

for the ideological beliefs hypothesis. Also, the association between discrimination on negative

outcome distribution and positive social identity was not significant, thus providing support for the

discrimination valence hypothesis rather than for the perceptual difference hypothesis. A final model,

which excluded these non-significant associations, was thus tested. Goodness-of-fit values for this final

model were as follows: 2 (148) 314.97, p< 0.001, CFI 0.930, RMR 0.100, RMSEA 0.064(confidence interval 0.0540.073), PCFI 0.805. Although more parsimonious, this final model did

not differ from the hypothesized model (2(3) 0.37, n.s.). The Wald Test did not reveal any non-

significant associations in this final model.

DISCUSSION

The MGP results obtained in this study showed that group members discriminated as much on

negative as on positive outcome distributions. By evoking the need to achieve a successful corporate

merger within a competitive economic market, the present study provided participants with a plausible

ideological justification for discriminating on both positive and negative outcomes (Amiot & Bourhis,

2003). The profit motive guiding successful mergers may have made negative outcome distributions

appear more acceptable and meaningful for group members in our study, thus eliminating the usual

PNAE obtained by the Mummendey research group. As proposed by Mummendey and Otten (1998),

discrimination involving negative outcomes requires additional aggravating conditions (Otten,

Mummendey, & Blanz, 1996). In our study, the intergroup context of corporate mergers driven by




13/18

Figure1.

Structu

ralequationmodeltestingthehypothe

sizedassociationsbetweenideological

beliefs,positiveandnegativediscrimination,andqualityof

socialidentification;*p

amiot e bouris, 2005

Documents