The interplay between low intergroup status and between-member relations

Unlike previous claims that an interaction and interdependence route will apply for small dynamic groups and a categorical route will be most suitable for the study of the

dynamics linked to membership in large-scale groups or social categories (Prentice, Miller, & Lightdale, 1994; Wilder & Simon, 1998), we argue in this section that further integration of those processes and their interplay in shaping the self-group relations is needed. We think moreover that the integration of both categorization and interdependence processes is particularly required when it comes to membership in a disadvantaged social category.

In the case of groups of equal status and high status groups, awareness of category membership, independently of between-member relations (internal ties), can directly lead to group-level self-definition and work as a factor strengthening the self-group relationship by virtue of a positive distinctiveness principle. However, when it comes to members of socially disadvantaged groups and given the costs that may be associated with the relatively

disadvantaged status of these groups, situations that lead to intergroup differentiation and awareness of category membership may not be sufficient to keep them together and create the motivation for a representation of themselves being a group. While Tajfel and Turner (1979) considered that a “consensual definition by others can become, in the long run, one of the powerful causal factors for a group’s self definition”, Lewin warned that “a minority kept together only from outside is in itself chaotic. It is composed of a mass of individuals without inner relations with each other, a group unorganized and weak” (p. 165). Noticing the

members of disadvantaged groups, and eloquently describing their interplay, Goffman noted that:

A good portion of those who fall within a given stigma category may well refer to the total membership by the term “group” or an equivalent, such as “we” or “our people” […]. However, often in such cases the full membership will not be part of a single group, in the strict sense; they will never have a capacity for collective action, nor a stable and

embracing pattern of mutual interaction. What one does find is that the members of a particular stigma category will have a tendency to come together into small social groups whose members all derive from the category, these groups themselves being subject of overarching organization to varying degrees. And one also finds that when one member of the category happens to come into contact with another, both may be disposed to modify their treatment of each other by virtue of believing that they all belong to the same

“group”. Further, in being a member of the category, an individual may have an increased probability of coming into contact with any other member, and even forming a relationship with him as a result. A category then can dispose its members to group-formation and relationships but its total membership does not thereby constitute a group (Goffman, 1963, p. 23-24).

As we discussed previously, past research in unequal status relations suggests that awareness of category membership and ingroup disadvantage can lead to higher collective tendencies and efforts on behalf of the group as a means to cope with the identity threat, but can also lead to individuals dissociating themselves from their groups and the costs associated with it. We argue that intragroup cohesiveness is a key resource for coping with the costs associated with a relative in-group disadvantage, but that the socio-structural variables that make intergroup differentiation and awareness of relative disadvantage salient are not sufficient to create a sense of groupness with strong solidary ties among the disadvantaged. Category membership, when imposed because of impermeable boundaries, can be salient cognitively, but results—as noted by Lewin—in unconnected and unorganized groups. Following Lewin’s proposition and Goffman’s observation, we argue that between-member relations and patterns of interaction are key factors that need to be given priority when we want to predict groupness tendencies as a result of intergroup perceptions and unequal status relations.

The literature that has examined the interplay between intragroup factors and

unfavourable intergroup comparisons shows indeed that intragroup factors (e.g., the level of group commitment or intragroup respect) are particularly important in predicting members of disadvantaged groups’ responses to the salience of their low group status. For example, Branscombe & Spears (2002) varied orthogonally intragroup respect (respected vs. disrespected by other ingroup members) and intergroup status (devalued vs. prestigious group) and found that they interactively predict investment on behalf of the group: members of the devalued group showed higher investment on behalf of the group, but only when they were respected by other ingroup members.

Several other studies that explored the psychological factors that make people stay in a group and exhibit group-level behaviour in situations of unfavourable intergroup comparison (Doosje, Ellemers, & Spears, 1995; Ellemers & Rijswijk, 1997; Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje, 1997) confirmed the importance of group commitment in those situations. The results yielded that a pre-existing sense of commitment to the group was a determinant of whether people prefer group-level strategies and self-definition or individual-level responses to low group status (Doosje et al., 1995; Spears, Doosje, & Ellemers, 1997). Overall, these studies support our proposition that understanding groupness tendencies in the case of asymmetric status relations requires that one goes beyond analyses of the socio-structural variables of the intergroup context (e.g., salience of group features in comparative contexts, permeability of boundaries). One should give further attention to the internal relations among group members, the intragroup processes that foster the development of strong ties between them, and their interplay with intergroup processes.