Intergroup competition stems from pressures toward positive distinctiveness

Evidence

The basic hypothesis, then, is that pressures to evaluate one’s own group positively through in-group/out-group comparisons lead social groups to attempt to differentiate themselves from each other (Tajfel, 1978a; Turner, 1975b). There are at least three classes of variables that should influence intergroup differentiation in concrete social situations. First, individuals must have internalized their group membership as an aspect of their self-concept: they must be subjectively identified with the relevant in-group. It is not enough that the others define them as a group, although consensual definitions by others can become, in the long run, one of the most powerful causal factors determining a group’s self-definition. Second, the social situation must be such as to allow for intergroup comparisons that enable the selection and evaluation of the relevant relational attributes. Not all between-group differences have evaluative significance (Tajfel, 1959), and those that do vary from group to group. Skin color, for instance, is apparently a more salient attribute in the United States than in Hong Kong (Morland, 1969); whereas language seems to be an especially salient dimension of separate identity in French Canada, Wales, and Belgium (Giles & Johnson, 1981; Giles & Powesland, 1975). Third, in-groups do not compare themselves with every cognitively available out-group: the outgroup must be perceived as a relevant comparison group. Similarity, proximity, and situational salience are among the variables that determine out-group comparability, and pressures toward in-group distinctiveness should increase as a function of this comparability. It is important to state at this point that, in many social situations, comparability reaches a much wider range than a simply conceived “similarity” between the groups. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2721

Categorization

• DEFINE: Identifies the three preconditions for intergroup differentiation: internalized membership, comparative attributes, and a relevant comparison out-group.
• XREF: Skin color salience differing between US and Hong Kong echoes colonial/postcolonial identity literature. — connects to: When two human groups compete, the advantaged one maintains dominance through oppression — Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, 151; Subcultural distinction requires high signaling costs to deter outsiders — W. David Marx, Status and Culture: How Our Desire for…, 422; Intergroup threat arises when one group’s actions challenge another group’s goal attainment or well-being. — Blake M. Riek, Eric W. Mania, and Samuel L. Gaertner, Intergroup Threat and Outgroup…, 17 (+1 more)
• QUESTION: What determines which attributes gain evaluative significance for a given group—worth chasing into Tajfel 1959.