Control as an Outcome and Predictor of Intergroup Discrimination

This study examines the relationship between control and intergroup discrimination. Two hypotheses are tested. The first states that the display of intergroup discrimination will lead to an increased sense of control. The second states that low levels of control (manipulated through a control-threatening exclusion paradigm) will lead to increased intergroup discrimination. Clear support was found for the first hypothesis. Some support was found for the second hypothesis. New Zealanders who allocated more white noise to out-group members (i.e., Asians) than in-group members (i.e., New Zealanders) reported increased levels of control. Compared to those in the baseline, participants with lower and higher levels of control both showed increased discrimination. Intergroup discrimination was positively associated with increased control. Partial correlation revealed that this relationship was not a function of self-uncertainty, group-specific esteem or social identity. Sch J Psychol & Behav Sci 2/8 Citation: Hunter J A, Platow, M J, O’Brien K, Hayhurst J, Stringer M, et al. Control as an Outcome and Predictor of Intergroup Discrimination. Sch J Psychol & Behav Sci. 1(5)-2018. SJPBS MS.ID. 000122. Copyrights@ John A Hunter, et al. attribution Hewstone, 1989, scapegoating Rothschild Landau et al. [24], intergroup violence Hunter et al. [25] and (genocide) Staub [26]. In comparison to the research on self-esteem, few studies have assessed the link between control and intergroup discrimination. What research there is generally points to the same broad conclusion. Low control (in the context of threat), and threats to control lead to increased patterns of ethnocentrism, prejudice and out-group derogation Agroskin & Jonas [27], Fritsche et al. [28], Greenaway et al. [29], Rankin & Hunter [52]. Such findings are consistent with the idea that control motivates intergroup discrimination. The major underlying (and so far, untested) assumption of this work is that, discrimination functions to re-establish control. Given, however, that people are motivated to achieve control, and that intergroup discrimination is a means by which control can be attained, we argue that intergroup discrimination may additionally function (via the demonstration of in-group superiority) to enhance one’s sense of control. As such, control may function as both a cause and an effect in relation to intergroup discrimination. These ideas are apparent in three strands of work. The first comes from the ideas of Fritsche et al. [30]. This team has offered a group-level control restoration explanation for the mortality salience-world-view defense effects found in terror management studies e.g., Solomon et al. [13]. According to this view, social groups provide their members with a vicarious sense of control (e.g., they exist after the individual’s death). Threats such as mortality salience undermine this sense of control and prompt attempts to regain it. This may be achieved by bolstering one’s worldview by means of in-group identification and intergroup discrimination Fritsche, et al. [30]. As such, whilst threats to control lead to intergroup discrimination, intergroup discrimination functions to restore control. The second may be derived from the Fiske’s discussion of core motives, stereotypes and interdependence Fiske [16,17]. Fiske argues that group members are motivated to achieve control. Out-groups challenge this sense of control by virtue of their existence. This occurs because, in part, out-groups represent an unknown quantity. Compared to the in-group they are ‘novel, unfamiliar and unpredictable’ Fiske [16]. Moreover, the outgroup is assumed to threaten the in-group’s goals (i.e., they might compete for resources, be physically dangerous or challenge the in-group’s worldview). Control can be retained, however, by means of intergroup discrimination (i.e., distinguishing between the ingroup and out-group and the differential application of descriptive and prescriptive stereotypes Fiske [21]. The third way in which control may be related to intergroup discrimination may be found in the social identity perspective Tajfel & Turner [1], Turner et al. [31]. Using this framework there are at least two ways in which the aforementioned variables may be associated (see also Fritsche et al. [30]. The first, as Abrams and Hogg [6], in their critique of the SEH imply, is that (since self-esteem and control are strongly linked, Judge et al. [32] the motive for control can be used to replace the motive for self-esteem. The second can be derived from Hogg’s more recent work on identity uncertainty Hogg [33]. The primary focus of this perspective is with people’s strivings to reduce uncertainty and achieve clarity Hogg [33]. However, in light of both conceptual Hogg and Mullin [34] and empirical relationships Wu & Yao [35] between uncertainty and control, we argue that the processes described by Hogg are likely to be applicable to perceptions of control and prediction. Thus, on the basis of Hogg’s explication of the processes involved in social categorization, we might predict that a) when people differentiate between the in-group and outgroup in terms of prototypes (or attributes) that prescribe what the members of each group ‘should, think, feel and do’ Hogg [33]. b) when these prototypes are endorsed or normalized in a group serving manner (i.e., facilitating intergroup discrimination) group members feelings of control are likely to be enhanced. Further, given that threats to control might exacerbate these processes Hogg [12], we might additionally predict that lower levels of control will lead to increased discrimination.