Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Downside of Being Up: A New Look at Group Relative Gratification and Traditional Prejudice

  • Published:
Social Justice Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In two experiments, we examine the moderating effect of the legitimacy and the stability of the advantaged in-group status on the relationship between measures of group relative gratification (GRG) and traditional prejudice among members of a structurally advantaged group. In Study 1, 133 participants learned that their advantaged in-group status was based on legitimate or illegitimate grounds. As expected, when participants learned of the legitimate status of their in-group, GRG was associated with the endorsement of traditional prejudice. In Study 2, 188 participants learned that their advantaged in-group status was expected to remain stable or to fluctuate. As predicted, when participants were alerted to the decline in the privileged status of the in-group, GRG was positively associated with traditional prejudice. These findings illuminate the ways in which members of advantaged groups perpetuate intergroup inequities and point to a fuller, more nuanced conceptualization of system stability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. At the Université de Moncton, the job market for international students without Canadian citizenship is restricted to on-campus employment only.

  2. Research has revealed limitations to the Cronbach’s alpha and proposes the use of Guttman’s lower bound statistic as a better indicator of internal consistency (Sijtsma, 2009). Therefore, throughout the paper, the highest lambda of the six lower bounds is also presented.

  3. Drawing upon the work of Guimond and Dambrun (2002), a measure of perceived improvement over time was also assessed and entered into the analyses in Study 1 and Study 2. However, no reliable patterns emerged.

  4. The affective dimension of GRG was also measured. These results can be made available upon request.

  5. To explore whether the combination of these two conditions (no explanation, legitimate explanation) significantly altered results, regression analyses were conducted by creating two dummy variables: legitimate (vs. illegitimate) and no explanation (vs. illegitimate). The referent group was the illegitimate explanation condition. The multiple regression analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between the independent variable, that is, GRG (i.e., perceived intergroup improvement), the moderators (legitimate vs. illegitimate and no explanation vs. illegitimate) and their respective interactions (GRG × legitimate, GRG × no explanation), on the dependent variable, traditional racism. Note that modern racism and social dominance orientation were entered into the analysis. Findings point to a significant GRG × legitimate (vs. illegitimate) interaction, B = 0.19, SE = 0.09, β = 0.25, p = 0.03, and a marginally significant GRG × no explanation (vs. illegitimate) interaction, B = 0.17, SE = 0.09, β = 0.21, p = 0.06. These results provide evidence that the legitimate and no explanation conditions reflect a similar trend and additional justification for combining both conditions in the principal analysis.

  6. In Study 1, t tests were conducted to examine whether women and men differed on the basis of the variables contained in the analysis. A Bonferroni correction was used to adjust for multiple pairwise comparisons (p = 0.006). No significant differences between men and women were detected. In Study 2, responses of men and women were compared with a series of t tests (Bonferroni correction, p = 0.008). Significant differences were found with respect to modern racism, t(148) = −3.65, p < 0.001, whereby men reported higher modern racist views (M = 3.54) than women (M = 2.95). Men further expressed greater social dominance orientation (M = 2.32) than women (M = 1.82), t(148) = −3.56, p = 0.001. Multiple regression analyses were also conducted to examine whether including gender in the analysis altered the results. According to results, adding gender to the main analyses did not affect the pattern of results for Study 1 and Study 2.

  7. A one-way analysis of variance was conducted to examine whether the experimental conditions (legitimacy, illegitimacy, no explanation, control) had an effect on the variables contained in Study 1. The analysis revealed a nonsignificant effect for modern racism (p = 0.31) and social dominance orientation (p = 0.59). However, a significant effect of the experimental conditions was obtained for the measure of GRG (i.e., perceived intergroup improvement, p = 0.001). A one-way analysis of variance was also conducted to examine the effect of the experimental conditions (stable, in-group decline, out-group progress, control) on the variables contained in Study 2. Findings reveal that the manipulations were not associated with modern racism (p = 0.26) and social dominance orientation (p = 0.49). However, the experimental conditions were associated with GRG (i.e., perceived intergroup improvement, p = 0.001). These findings suggest that the experimental conditions in both studies were not associated with modern racism and social dominance orientation and further justify their inclusion in the model.

  8. In Study 1 and Study 2, multiple regression analyses were conducted to examine whether this pattern of findings could be replicated with other measures of intergroup conflict—namely modern racism and social dominance orientation as the dependent variable. No significant effects were uncovered.

  9. To address Tajfel’s (1981) concerns that both the legitimacy and stability of the intergroup relation are sometimes confounded, we tested whether the legitimacy of the advantaged status varied across the three experimental conditions where stability was manipulated in Study 2 (stable, out-group progress, in-group decline). There was no difference between the conditions on perceived legitimacy, F(2, 150) = 0.25, p > 0.05, η 2 = 0.00.

  10. To explore whether the combination of these two conditions (out-group progress and stable) significantly altered results, regression analyses were conducted by creating two dummy variables: stability (vs. in-group decline) and out-group progress (vs. in-group decline). The referent group was the in-group decline condition. A multiple regression analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between the independent variable, GRG (i.e., perceived intergroup improvement), the moderators (stable vs. in-group decline and out-group progress vs. in-group decline) and their interaction on the dependent variable, traditional racism, while taking into account the effects of modern racism and social dominance orientation, R 2adjusted  = 0.54, F(7, 138) = 24.86, p < 0.001. According to results, the interaction effect between the independent variable and the moderator, instability out-group progress, was significant, B = −0.16, SE = 0.07, β = −0.16, p = 0.03, and the interaction effect between the independent variable and the moderator, stability, was marginally significant, B = −0.15, SE = 0.09, β = −0.14, p = 0.07. These results provide evidence that the out-group progress and stable conditions reflect a similar trend and additional justification for combining both conditions in the principal analysis.

References

  • Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amodio, D. M., Devine, P. G., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2007). A dynamic model of guilt: Implications for motivation and self-regulation in the context of prejudice. Psychological Science, 18, 524–530.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Augoustinos, M., Ahrens, C., & Innes, J. M. (1994). Stereotypes and prejudice: The Australian experience. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 125–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beaton, A. M., & Deveau, M. (2005). Helping the less fortunate: A predictive model of collective action. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 1609–1629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beaton, A. M., Dovidio, J. F., & LeBlanc, J. (2011). Traditional prejudice and justice judgments: Does bias suppression moderate the relationship? Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 579–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bettencourt, B. A., Dorr, N., Charlton, K., & Hume, D. L. (2001). Status differences and in-group bias: A meta-analytic examination of the effects of status stability, status legitimacy, and group permeability. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 520–542.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Branscombe, N. R., Schmitt, M. T., & Schiffhauer, K. (2007). Racial attitudes in response to thoughts of White privilege. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 203–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, R. J. (2010). Prejudice: Its social psychology (2nd ed.). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crosby, F. (1976). A model of egoistical relative deprivation. Psychological Review, 83, 85–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, E., & Platow, M. J. (2007). On helping lower status out-groups: The nature of the help and the stability of the intergroup status hierarchy. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 258–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dambrun, M., Guimond, S., & Taylor, D. M. (2006). The counter-intuitive effect of relative gratification on intergroup attitudes: Ecological validity, moderators and mediators. In S. Guimond (Ed.), Social comparison and social psychology: Understanding cognition, intergroup relations, and culture (pp. 206–227). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dambrun, M., & Taylor, D. M. (2013). The counterintuitive association between life satisfaction and racism. SageOpen,. doi:10.1177/2158244013505756.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, J. C. (1962). Toward a theory of revolution. American Sociological Review, 27, 5–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de la Sablonnière, R., Taylor, D. M., Perozzo, C., & Sadykova, N. (2008). Reconceptualizing relative deprivation in the context of dramatic social change: The challenge confronting the people of Kyrgyzstan. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 325–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2004). Aversive racism. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 36, pp. 1–52). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubé, L., & Guimond, S. (1986). Relative deprivation and social protest: The personal-group issue. In J. M. Olson, C. P. Herman, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Relative deprivation and social comparison: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 4, pp. 158–179). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eibach, R. P., & Keegan, T. (2006). Free at last? Social dominance, loss aversion, and White and Black Americans’ differing assessments of racial progress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 453–467.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grofman, B. N., & Muller, E. N. (1973). The strange case of relative gratification and potential for political violence: The V-curve hypothesis. American Political Science Review, 67, 514–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guimond, S., & Dambrun, M. (2002). When prosperity breeds intergroup hostility: The effects of relative deprivation and relative gratification on prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 900–912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagendoorn, L. (1995). Intergroup biases in multiple group systems: The perception of ethnic hierarchies. European Review of Social Psychology, 6, 199–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harth, N. S., Kessler, T., & Leach, C. W. (2008). Advantaged group’s emotional reactions to intergroup inequality: The dynamics of pride, guilt, and sympathy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 115–129.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Iyer, A., Leach, C., & Crosby, F. J. (2003). White guilt and racial compensation: The benefits and limits of self-focus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 117–129.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25, 881–919.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leach, C. (2002). Democracy’s dilemma: Explaining racial inequality in egalitarian societies. Sociological Forum, 17, 681–696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leach, C. W., Iyer, A., & Pedersen, A. (2006). Anger and guilt about ingroup advantage: Explaining the willingness for political action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1232–1245.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Leach, C. W., Snider, N., & Iyer, A. (2002). ‘Poisoning the conscience of the fortunate’: The experience of relative advantage and support for social equality. In I. Walker & H. Smith (Eds.), Relative deprivation: Specification, development and integration (pp. 136–163). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maritime Provinces Higher Education Commission. (2014). Annual report: Year in review 2013–2014. http://www.mphec.ca/media/83372/2013-2014_AR_EN_FINAL.pdf.

  • McConahay, J. B. (1986). Modern racism, ambivalence, and the Modern Racism Scale. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 91–125). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McIntosh, P. (1989). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack. Working paper #189. Wellesley, MA: Wellesley College Center for Research on Women.

  • McIntosh, P. (2012). Reflections and future directions for privilege studies. Journal of Social Issues, 68, 194–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miron, A. M., Branscombe, N. R., & Schmitt, M. T. (2006). Collective guilt as distress over illegitimate intergroup inequality. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9, 163–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neuwenhuis, B. (2009). Relative deprivation and relative gratification as predictors of intergroup discrimination: Can prejudice be reduced by equality? Masters thesis. http://ufh.netd.ac.za/bitstream/10353/147/1/Masters%20Thesis%20Brigitte.pdf.

  • Pedersen, A., Beven, J., Walker, I., & Griffiths, B. (2004). Attitudes toward Indigenous Australians: The role of empathy and guilt. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 14, 233–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pettigrew, T. F., Christ, O., Wagner, U., Meertens, R. W., van Dick, R., & Zick, A. (2008). Relative deprivation and intergroup prejudice. Journal of Social Issues, 64, 385–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Postmes, T., & Smith, L. G. E. (2009). Why do the privileged resort to oppression? A look at some intragroup factors. Journal of Social Issues, 65, 769–790.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, A. A., Branscombe, N. R., & Schmitt, M. T. (2005). Inequality as ingroup privilege or outgroup disadvantage: The impact of group focus on collective guilt and interracial attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 508–521.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R. W., & Prentice-Dunn, S. (1981). Deindividuation and anger-mediated interracial aggression: Unmasking regressive racism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 63–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Runciman, W. G. (1966). Relative deprivation and social justice: A study of attitudes to social inequality in twentieth-century England. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheepers, D. (2009). Turning social identity threat into challenge: Status stability and cardiovascular reactivity during inter-group competition. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 228–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, M. T., Branscombe, N. R., & Kappen, D. M. (2003). Attitudes toward group-based inequality: Social dominance or social identity? British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 161–186.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (2004). Social dominance theory: A new synthesis. In J. T. Jost & J. Sidanius (Eds.), Political psychology: Key readings (pp. 315–332). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sijtsma, K. (2009). On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika, 74, 107–120.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, H. J., Pettigrew, T. F., Pippin, G. M., & Bialosiewicz, S. (2012). Relative deprivation: A theoretical and analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16, 203–232.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Snellman, A., & Ekehammar, B. (2005). Ethnic hierarchies, ethnic prejudice and social dominance orientation. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 15, 83–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H. (1978). The psychological structure of intergroup relations. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 27–100). London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tougas, F., & Veilleux, F. (1990). The response of men to affirmative action strategies for women: The study of a predictive model. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 22, 424–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vallerand, R. J. (1989). Vers une méthodologie de validation trans-culturelle de questionnaires psychologiques: Implications pour la recherche en langue française. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 30, 662–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, I. (1994). Attitudes to minorities: Survey evidence of Western Australians’ attitudes to Aborigines, Asians, and Women. Australian Journal of Psychology, 46, 137–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, I., & Smith, H. J. (2002). Fifty years of relative deprivation research. In I. Walker & H. J. Smith (Eds.), Relative deprivation: Specification, development, and integration (pp. 1–9). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, I., Wong, N. K., & Kretzschmar, K. (2002). Relative deprivation and attribution: From grievance to action. In I. Walker & H. J. Smith (Eds.), Relative deprivation: Specification, development, and integration (pp. 288–312). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whol, M. J. A., Branscombe, N. R., & Klar, Y. (2006). Collective guilt: Emotional reactions when one’s group has done wrong or been wronged. European Review of Social Psychology, 17, 1–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a doctoral scholarship from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada conferred to the first author (767-2010-1721) and a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada conferred to the second author (950-203481). The authors thank Tanya Monger for her assistance with data collection.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Psychology, Université de Moncton, 18 Antonine-Maillet Avenue, Moncton, NB, E1A 3E9, Canada

    Josée LeBlanc & Ann M. Beaton

  2. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, Australia

    Iain Walker

Authors
  1. Josée LeBlanc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ann M. Beaton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Iain Walker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ann M. Beaton.

Appendix

Appendix

Study 1: Graph

figure a

Study 2: Out-Group Progress Condition

figure b

Study 2: Stable Condition

figure c

Study 2: In-Group Decline Condition

figure d

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

LeBlanc, J., Beaton, A.M. & Walker, I. The Downside of Being Up: A New Look at Group Relative Gratification and Traditional Prejudice. Soc Just Res 28, 143–167 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-015-0233-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-015-0233-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation