Losing a fair competition can produce acquiescence rather than hostility

Evidence

Social and realistic competition also differ in the predictions that can be made about the consequences for subsequent intergroup behavior of winning or losing. After realistic competition, the losing groups should be hostile to the out-group victors, both because they have been deprived of a reward and because their interaction has been exclusively conflictual. However, when winning and losing establish shared group evaluations concerning comparative superiority and inferiority, then, so long as the terms of the competition are perceived as legitimate and the competition itself as fair according to these terms, the losing group may acquiesce in the superiority of the winning out-group. This acquiescence by a group considering itself as legitimately “inferior” has been shown in studies by Caddick (1980, 1982), Commins and Lockwood, (1979) and Turner and Brown (1978). Several other studies report findings that are in line with this interpretation: losing in-groups do not always derogate, but sometimes upgrade, their evaluations of the winning out-groups (for example, Bass & Dunteman, 1963; Wilson & Miller, 1961). — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2724 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

A significant feature of the value function is that losses loom larger than gains. For example, the displeasure associated with losing a sum of money is generally greater than the pleasure associated with winning the same amount. This property, called loss aversion, is depicted in Figure 1 by the steeper slope for outcomes below the reference point than for those above. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2445 (#complicates, via linked claim)

From social identity theory come the important notions that the conflict between groups is not necessarily or even primarily designed to maximize the absolute material return to the ingroup but rather to maximize the relative return to the ingroup, sometimes even at the cost of substantial material loss to both the self and the ingroup. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 3269 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Seeking positive distinctiveness through competition generates conflict over scarce resources — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2745; Losing groups accept defeat when they deem the competition fair and legitimate — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2724; Loss aversion makes displeasure from losing exceed pleasure from winning equally — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2445 (+2 more)

Broader Connections

• Losing groups accept defeat when they deem the competition fair and legitimate #corroborates (0.97) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2724
• Loss aversion makes displeasure from losing exceed pleasure from winning equally #complicates (0.75) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2445
• Groups sometimes sacrifice absolute gain to achieve relative advantage over rivals #complicates (0.72) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 3269