Belief in group hierarchy makes people see competition everywhere

Evidence

The aim of differentiation is to maintain or achieve superiority over an out-group on some dimensions. Any such act, therefore, is essentially competitive. Fully reciprocal competition between groups requires a situation of mutual comparison and differentiation on a shared value dimension. In these conditions, intergroup competition, which may be unrelated to the objective goal relations between the groups, can be predicted to occur. Turner (1975b) has distinguished between social and instrumental or “realistic” competition. The former is motivated by self-evaluation and takes place through social comparison, whereas the latter is based on “realistic” self-interest and represents embryonic conflict. Incompatible group goals are necessary for realistic competition, but mutual intergroup comparisons are necessary, and often sufficient, for social competition. The latter point is consistent with the data from the minimal group experiments that mere awareness of an out-group is sufficient to stimulate in-group favoritism, and the observations (Doise & Weinberger, 1973; Ferguson & Kelley, 1964; Rabbie & Wilkens, 1971) that the possibility of social comparison generates “spontaneous” intergroup competition. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2723 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Belief in zero-sum competition sustains group hierarchies; Belief in zero-sum competition is an ideology that maintains hierarchy for dominant groups — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years…, 1486; Ideologies and situations jointly trigger perceived group competition, requiring an outgroup — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 1497 (+3 more)

Broader Connections

• Awareness of an out-group alone suffices to trigger intergroup competition #complicates (0.75) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2723