SocialPsychology315LabReport

Forthislaboratoryreportyoushouldonlyincludeadiscussion.This
discussionshouldbenolongerthan1200words.Itisnotnecessarytoinclude
anythingelse.Onlyincludeareferencesectionifyoucitematerialwhichisnot
mentionedinthishandout.Thereportshouldbesubmittedby4pm,Monday,
September12th.Lateassignmentswillbepenalizedat10%perday.
IntroductionandOverview
Inanattempttoclarifytheroleofselfesteeminsocialidentitytheorys(SIT,
Tajfel&Turner,1979)accountofintergroupdiscrimination,AbramsandHogg,
(1988)developedtheselfesteemhypothesis(SEH).TheSEHiscomprisedoftwo
corollaries.Thefirststatesthatintergroupdiscriminationincreasesselfesteem.The
secondstatesthatloworthreatenedselfesteemincreasesintergroupdiscrimination.
Researchconductedinordertoassesseachoftheseassumptionshasrevealedaseries
ofconflictingandoftencontradictoryfindings(Abrams&Hogg,1988;Rubinand
Hewstone,1998).Thus,withrespecttothefirstcorollarysomestudiesshowthat
intergroupdiscriminationdoesenhanceselfesteem.Otherstudiesrevealthatsuch
effectsdonotalwaysoccurandthatsometimesselfesteemmaydecreasefollowing
discrimination.Aconfusingpatternalsoemergeswithrespecttothesecondcorollary
ofthehypothesis.Someexperimentsshowthatloworthreatenedselfesteemdoes
leadtoenhanceddiscrimination.Others,however,showeitherthatitishighself
esteemthatpromotesintergroupdiscriminationorthatlowselfesteemleadsto
discriminationthatfavourstheoutgroup.
Asaconsequenceofthefindingsdiscernedinthisbroadarea,anumberof
influentialtheoristshavenowbeguntochallengethepivotalmotivationalrole
accordedtoselfesteemwithintheSITframework(e.g.,Brown,2010,2000).Itis
importanttonotethoughthat,muchoftheworkconcernedwithassessingthelink
betweenselfesteemandvariousformsofintergroupdiscriminationisacknowledged
tobefraughtwithanumberofmethodologicalshortcomings(seeAbrams&Hogg,
1988;Hunter,etal.,1996;Long&Spears,1997).Assuch,itmaybearguedthat,
beforetheroleofselfesteeminintergroupdiscriminationcanbeproperlyevaluated,
itisnecessarythattheseshortcomingsbeadequatelyaddressed.
Oneofthemajorshortcomingsassociatedwithresearchinthisarearelatesto
thefactthatmanyresearchershaveutilisedinstrumentsdesignedtoassesspersonal
selfesteem(PSE).Theuseofsuchmeasurestoexaminepredictionsderivedfrom
SITis,asseveralcommentatorshaveargued,conceptuallyinappropriate(e.g.,Hunter
etal.2004;Turner,1999).Forthisreason,researchershavenowbeguntoexaminea
varietyofalternativemethodsbywhichtomoreaccuratelydelineategroupbased
selfevaluation(e.g.,Hunter,etal.,1997,2005;Platow,etal.,1997).Onemethod
withthepotentialofcircumventingtheshortcomingsinherentinthisfieldhasbeen
providedbyEllemers,Kortekaas and Ouwerkerk(1999).Thesetheorists,inan
attempttoassesstheesteemassociatedwithsocialcategorymembership,have
developedacollectiveselfesteem(CSE)scale.Researchincorporatingthismeasure
(oroneofitsfoursubscales)is,inmanyways,encouragingwithrespecttothe
assumptionsofSIT(e.g.,Branscombe&Wann,1994;Chin&McClintock,1993).
Consequently,RubinandHewstone(1998)haveofferedarevisedversionofthe
SEH.Thisformulationstatesthat(1)intergroupdiscriminationwillleadtoincreased
CSEand(2)loworthreatenedCSEwillleadtoenhancedintergroupdiscrimination.

Theresearchpresentedinthecurrentstudyrepresentsanattempttoexaminethese
ideas.Twohypothesesaresubsequentlytested.Thefirststatesthatintergroup
discriminationwillleadtoelevatedCSE.Thesecondstatesthatloworthreatened
CSEwillleadtoelevatedintergroupdiscrimination.
MethodandProcedure
Thestudywascarriedoutaspartofalabclassinalargelecturetheatre.
Approximately148peopletookpartinthestudy(thedatafrom46werediscarded,
becausetheydidnotidentifyaswomen,orguessedthetruepurposeofthestudy).
Fiftytwowomenwereassignedtoanonthreatcondition.Fiftywereassignedtoa
threatcondition.Inanattempttomakegenderidentitysalient,participantswere
askedtooutlinethreethingsthattheylikedaboutwomenandthreethingsthat
theydidnotlikeaboutmen(Haslam,2004).Threatwasmanipulatedviaimagined
rejection(seeBlackhart,etal.2009).Participantsassignedtotherejectioncondition
wereaskedto
Imaginethatone
dayyoutakepartinapsychologyexperiment(onhowpeopleinyourgendergroup
makedecisions).Intheexperimentyousitatalargetablewithfiveotherpeople(all
ofwhomarethesamegenderasyou).Afteryouwriteyournameonanametagand
putiton,youtakepartinanumberofgettoknoweachothertaskswiththeother
membersofthegroup.Inthesetasksyouarerequiredtotelltheothersalittlebit
aboutyourself(i.e.,thekindofpersonyouwouldliketobeand,someofyour
strengthsandweaknesses).Afteryouandeveryoneelsedoesthis,participantsare
askedtowritedownthenamesof2peopletheywouldmostliketoworkwith(ona
groupdecisionmakingtaskthatistotakeplacelater).Theexperimenterthen
collatestheresponsesandthentakeseachpersonoutsidetogivethemtheirresults.
Whenitisyourturn,yougooutside,andyounoticethattheexperimenterseemsa
littleembarrassed.Theexperimenterthenexplainsthattheyaresorry,thishas
neverhappenedbefore,butnoonewantstoworkwithyou.
Participantsassignedtotheacceptanceconditionwerepresentedwithsamevignette
asthoseassignedtotherejectionconditionexceptingthelasttwolinesweremodified
toread
Whenitisyourturn,yougooutside,andyounoticethattheexperimenter
seemsalittleexcited.Theexperimenterthenexplainsthattheyaresurprised,this
hasneverhappenedbefore,buteveryonewantstoworkwithyou.
Followingthis,participantswerethenpresentedwithameasureofCSE.CSE
wasassessedusingthe4itemvariantofthegroupselfesteemsubscaledevelopedby
Ellemers,etal.(1999).Thisscale(e.g.,Ifeelgoodaboutmygroup)wascompleted
withrespecttogenderidentity.Responseswerescoredusinga5pointLikertscale
(1notatallvs.5verymuch).Toassesstheefficacyoftherejection/acceptance
manipulationparticipantswerepresentedwith20itemsassessingbelonging,control,
personalselfesteemandmeaning(e.g.,IfeelIbelong,Ifeelpowerful,Ifeelliked,I
feelinvisible).ResearchreportedbyWilliams(2009)revealsthateachofthesefour
needsarereducedfollowingrejection.
Participantswerethengiventheopportunitytoshowintergroup
discrimination.Intergroupdiscriminationwasassessedviatwotasksinwhich

participantswereaskedtoimaginethattheywereamanagerinafactory.Thefirst
taskrequiredthemanagertoemploy100people.Thereweretwohundredapplicants.
Onehundredwerewomenand100weremen.Themanagerwasallowedtohireas
manyoraslittlefromeithergroupastheywished,aslongastheyhired100peoplein
total.Thesecondtaskrequiredthemanagertosack100peoplefromthefactory.The
workforcecomprised100womenand100men.Themanagercouldsackasmanyor
asfewpeoplefromeachgroupastheywishedaslongastheysacked100intotal.
Followingthecompletionofthesetasks,participantscompletedthesameCSE
scaleaspresentedearlier.Anumberofadditionalquestionswerealsoincluded:these,
however,arenotrelevanttothecurrentproject.
Results
Manipulationchecks.Toassesstheefficacyofthemanipulationweexamined
theextenttowhichparticipantsintherejectionandacceptanceconditionsreported
highandlowlevelsofbelonging,control,personalselfesteemandmeaning.
Betweengroupsanalysesofvariance(ANOVAs)revealedthatcomparedto
participantsintheacceptedcondition,participantsintherejectedcondition
experiencedlowerlevelsofeachneed(belonging,M=23.63,SD=3.79,vs.M=
15.48,SD=5.66,F(1,101)=34.17,p<.001,control,M=23.40,SD=3.31,vs.M
=17.15,SD=4.94,F(1,101)=54.55,p<.001,personalselfesteem,M=23.56,
SD=5.92,vs.M=16.15,SD=5.38,F(1,101)=34.57,p<.001,andmeaning,M
=22.24,SD=7.49,vs.M=18.72,SD=7.65,F(1,101)=16.35,p<.001).
CSE.Toassesstheprediscriminationandpostdiscrimination(hereafter
referredtotime1andtime2)CSEscoresofthoseassignedtotheacceptedand
rejectedconditionsa2(condition:acceptedvs.rejected)x2(timeofCSE
measurement:time1totime2)mixedmodelmeasuresanalysisofvariance
(ANOVA)wasconducted.Thefirstfactorwasbetweengroups.Thesecondfactor
waswithingroups.CellmeansarepresentedinTable1.
Table1.
Time1andtime2CSEofparticipantsintheacceptedandrejectedconditions.
Condition
Time1
Time2
Acceptance(CSE)n=52 17.31(SD=2.45)
18.92(SD=2.16)*
Rejection(CSE)n=50
14.85(SD=2.36)
17.88(SD=2.29)**
*p<.05,**p<.01,elevatedCSEfromtime1totime2(byttest)
Amaineffectwasfoundforcondition,F(1,101)=10.42,p<.001.
ParticipantswhoimaginedrejectionreportedlowerlevelsofCSE(M=14.85,SD=
2.36,vs.M=17.31,SD=2.45).Theonlyothereffecttoemergewasaninteraction
betweentimeofCSEmeasurementandcondition,F(1,101)=6.26,p<.01.Planned
comparisonsconductedtoassessthiseffectfurthercomparedthetime1andtime2,
CSEofparticipantsineachcondition.Theseanalysesrevealedthatparticipantsin
boththeaccepted,t(52)=2.77,p<.05,andrejectedconditions,t(48)=2.07,p<.
05,experiencedanelevationinCSE,fromtime1totime2(i.e.,followingdisplayof
intergroupdiscrimination).

Intergroupdiscrimination.Toassessthenumberofingroupandoutgroup
membershiredintheacceptedandrejectedconditionsweconducteda2(condition:
acceptedvs.rejected)x2(targetgroup:ingroupvs.outgroup)mixedmodel
ANOVA.Thefirstfactorwasbetweengroups.Thesecondfactorwaswithingroups.
CellmeansarepresentedinTable2.
Table2.
Number of in-group and out-group members hired in the accepted
and rejected conditions.
Condition
Ingroup
Outgroup
Accepted(n=52)
53.96(SD=16.50)**
46.04(SD=16.50)
Rejected(n=50)
59.66(SD=18.11)**
40.34(SD=18.11)
***p<.005moreingroupthanoutgroupmembershired,byttest.
Aninteractionwasfoundbetweenconditionandtargetgroup,F(1,101)=
3.41,p<.05.Plannedcomparisonsusingrepeatedmeasuresttests,revealedthat
participantsinboththeaccepted,t(52)=2.97,p<.005,andrejected,t(50)=4.79,p
<.004,conditionshiredmoreingroupmembersthanoutgroupmembers.Rejected
participantsshowedalmosttwiceasmuchdifferentiation(i.e.,thedifferenceinthe
amountofingroupmembershiredcomparedtothedifferenceintheamountofout
groupmembershired)asdidacceptedparticipants(M=19.02vs.M=7.92).
Toassessthenumberofingroupandoutgroupmemberssackedinthe
acceptedandrejectedconditionsweconducteda2(condition:acceptedvs.rejected)
x2(targetgroup:ingroupvs.outgroup)mixedmodelANOVA.Thefirstfactorwas
betweengroups.Thesecondfactorwaswithingroups.Cellmeansarepresentedin
Table3.
Table3.
Numberofingroupandoutgroupmemberssackedintheacceptedandrejected
conditions.
Condition
Ingroup
Outgroup
Accepted(n=52)
49.86(SD=16.70)
50.14(SD=16.70)
Rejected(n=50)
45.35(SD=15.21)
55.65(SD=15.21)*
*p<.01moreoutgroupthantheingroupmemberssacked,byttest.
Aninteractionwasfoundbetweenconditionandtargetgroup,F(1,101)=
5.31,p<.01.Plannedcomparisonsusingrepeatedmeasuresttests,revealedthat
participantsintherejectedcondition,t(50)=2.98,p<.01,sackedmoreoutgroup
membersthaningroupmembers.Nodifferenceswerefoundintheaccepted
condition,t(52)=.76,p=.45.
Summaryofmainfindings
1.ParticipantsintherejectedconditionreportedlowerlevelsofCSE.

2.Althoughparticipantsinbothconditionsshowedsignificantlevelsofintergroup
discrimination,thoseintherejectedconditionshowedmorediscriminationwith
respecttohiringingroupandoutgroupmembers.
3.Participantsintherejectedconditionshoweddiscriminationwithrespecttosacking
moreoutgroupmembersthaningroupmembers.Participantsintheaccepted
conditiondidnotshowdiscriminationwithrespecttosacking.
4.ParticipantsintherejectedandacceptedconditionsreportedelevatedlevelsofCSE
followingintergroupdiscrimination(i.e.,fromtime1totime2).
Discussion
YourdiscussionshouldbroadlyfollowtheformatsuggestedbyFindlay
(2012),OShea(2006)orSterberg(1987).Includeadiscussionofhowtheresultsfit
withtheexpressedrationaleofthestudyandpastresearch(i.e.asstatedinyour
introduction).Outlineyourconclusions,togetherwithabriefoutlineofany
theoreticalandpracticalconsequencesofthestudy.Feelfreetoexpresswhatyou
considertobeanystrengthsorshortcomingsofthestudy(boththeoreticallyand
methodologically).Offersuggestionsforfutureresearch.
Selectedreferences
Abrams,D.&Hogg,M.A.(1988).Commentsonthemotivationalstatusofself
esteeminsocialidentityandintergroupdiscrimination.EuropeanJournalofSocial
Psychology,18,317334.
Blackhart,G.C.,Nelson,B.C.,Knowles,M.L.,&Baumeister,R.F.(2009).
RejectionElicitsEmotionalReactionsbutNeitherCausesImmediateDistressnor
LowersSelfEsteem:AMetaAnalyticReviewof192StudiesonSocialExclusion.
PersonalityandSocialPsychologyReview,13:269309.
Branscombe,N.R.&Wann,D.L.(1994).Collectiveselfesteemconsequencesof
outgroupderogationwhenavaluedsocialidentityisontrial.EuropeanJournalof
SocialPsychology,24,641657.
Brown,R.(2000).Socialidentitytheory:Pastachievements,currentproblemsand
futurechallenges.EuropeanJournalofSocialPsychology,30,745778.
Brown,R.(2010).Prejudice:Itssocialpsychology.Oxford:Blackwell.
Ellemers, N., Kortekaas, P., & Ouwerkerk, J. W. (1999). Self-categorization,
commitment to the group and group self-esteem as related but distinct aspects of
social identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 371-389.
Hunter,J.A.,Banks,M.,OBrien,K.,Kafka,S.,Hayhurst,J.,Jephson,D.,Jorgensen,
B.,&Stringer,M.(2011).Ingroupfavouritisminvolvingnegativeoutcomesand
selfesteem.JournalofAppliedSocialPsychology,41,11431172.
Hunter,J.A.,Cox,S.L.,OBrien,K.S.,Stringer,M.Boyes,M.,Banks,M.,
Hayhurst,J.G.,&Crawford,M.(2005).Threatstogroupvalue,domainspecificself
esteemandintergroupdiscriminationamongstminimalandnationalgroups.British
JournalofSocialPsychology,44,329353.
5

Long,K.M.,&Spears,R.(1997).Theselfesteemhypothesisrevisited:
Differentiationandthedisaffected.InSpears,R.,Oakes,P.J.,Ellemers,N.,&
Haslam,S.A.(Eds),Thesocialpsychologyofstereotypingandgrouplife.Oxford:
Blackwell.
Luhtanen,R.,&Crocker,J.(1992).Acollectiveselfesteemscale:Selfevaluationof
onessocialidentity.PersonalityandSocialPsychologyBulletin,18,302318.
Rubin,M.,&Hewstone,M.(1998).Socialidentitytheorysselfesteemhypothesis:
Areviewandsomesuggestionsforclarification.PersonalityandSocialPsychology
Review,2,4062.
Tajfel,H.,&Turner,J.C.(1979).Anintegrativetheoryofintergroupconflict.InS.
Worchel,&W.G.Austin(Eds.),Thesocialpsychologyofintergrouprelations.(pp.
3347).Monterey,Brooks/Cole.
Turner,J.C.(1999).Somecurrentissuesinresearchonsocialidentityandself
categorizationtheories.In.N.Ellemers,R.Spears,&B.Doojse(Eds.),Social
identity:context,commitment,content(pp.634).Oxford:Blackwell.
Williams,K.D.(2009).Ostracism:Effectsofbeingexcludedandignored.Advances
inExperimentalSocialPsychology,(Vol41,pp.279314).SanDiego:Academic
Press.
Zadro,L.,Williams,K.D.,&Richardson,R.(2004).Howlowcanyougo?
Ostracismbyacomputerissufficienttolowerselfreportedlevelsofbelonging,
control,selfesteemandmeaningfulexistence.JournalofExperimentalSocial
Psychology,40,560567.