Groups respond to perceived competition through outgroup derogation, ingroup enhancement, and status-quo-preserving discrimination

Evidence

Perceptions of group competition motivate actions to reduce competition. As shown in figure 14.1, attempts to eliminate group competition may take a variety of forms, reflecting various manifestations of prejudice and discrimination toward outgroups. We discuss three general strategies here, though others may certainly exist. The first two strategies correspond to the distinction between outgroup derogation and discrimination versus ingroup enhancement and preferential treatment (Brewer, 1999, 2001). First, a group may attempt to reduce the outgroup’s perceived competitiveness by expressing negative attitudes and attributions about the other group in order to establish the competitor’s lack of worth. This may include heightened endorsement of stereotypes about the outgroup used to justify the system as it currently exists ( Jost & Banaji, 1994). Attempts to eliminate the outgroup’s competitiveness may also entail overt discrimination and opposition to programs and policies that might change the status quo (Bobo, 1999; Jackson & Esses, 2000; Pratto & Lemieux, 2001). — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 1509

Categorization

• XREF: Ties directly to Jost & Banaji’s system justification and to Brewer’s optimal distinctiveness distinction between ingroup bias and outgroup derogation. — connects to: When two human groups compete, the advantaged one maintains dominance through oppression — Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, 151; Outbidding is context dependent and can phase-shift toward moderation after in-group victory — Cathy Gormley-Heenan and Roger Macginty, Ethnic Outbidding and Party…, 69; Anticipatory loss of group standing drives outgroup discrimination — Brenda Major and Alison Blodorn and Gregory Major Blascovich, The threat of increasing diversity: Why…, 14 (+6 more)