The Downside of Being Up: A New Look at GroupRelative Gratification and Traditional Prejudice

Josee LeBlanc • Ann M. Beaton • Iain Walker

Published online: 17 February 2015

� Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Abstract In two experiments, we examine the moderating effect of the legitimacy

and the stability of the advantaged in-group status on the relationship between

measures of group relative gratification (GRG) and traditional prejudice among

members of a structurally advantaged group. In Study 1, 133 participants learned

that their advantaged in-group status was based on legitimate or illegitimate

grounds. As expected, when participants learned of the legitimate status of their in-

group, GRG was associated with the endorsement of traditional prejudice. In Study

2, 188 participants learned that their advantaged in-group status was expected to

remain stable or to fluctuate. As predicted, when participants were alerted to the

decline in the privileged status of the in-group, GRG was positively associated with

traditional prejudice. These findings illuminate the ways in which members of

advantaged groups perpetuate intergroup inequities and point to a fuller, more nu-

anced conceptualization of system stability.

Keywords Group relative gratification � Prejudice � Legitimacy � Stability

Introduction

Though systemic change takes many decades, there are pressing questions for

me and I imagine for some others like me if we raise our daily consciousness

J. LeBlanc � A. M. Beaton (&)

School of Psychology, Universite de Moncton, 18 Antonine-Maillet Avenue, Moncton,

NB E1A 3E9, Canada

e-mail: ann.beaton@umoncton.ca

I. Walker

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, Australia

123

Soc Just Res (2015) 28:143–167

DOI 10.1007/s11211-015-0233-y

on the perquisites of being light-skinned. What will we do with such

knowledge? (McIntosh, 1989)

In her seminal paper on White Privilege, Peggy McIntosh offers a personal

account of the benefits accrued from her membership in a group that enjoys a

favorable status in society. She ponders how, as members of an advantaged group,

we will deal with a system that creates and perpetuates these privileges. The

experience of group privilege has received increasing attention in the literature (e.g.,

Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, 2004; Leach, Iyer, & Pedersen, 2006). Group privilege is

associated with prejudice, but inconsistently: In some cases, group advantage

increases bias toward an out-group (e.g., Branscombe, Schmitt, & Schiffhauer,

2007; Schmitt, Branscombe, & Kappen, 2003), and in other cases, decreases it

(Beaton & Deveau, 2005; Iyer, Leach, & Crosby, 2003; Powell, Branscombe, &

Schmitt, 2005). The present research is based on the contention that examining the

unique effects of the legitimacy and stability of the advantaged group’s status can

help identify when oppression is perpetuated by members of an advantaged group.

This research further contributes to the literature by investigating how evaluations of

an auspicious status, next to a less fortunate other, can influence prejudice. We

begin our analysis by drawing upon the concept of group relative deprivation (GRD)

and group relative gratification (GRG).

Relative Deprivation and Relative Gratification

GRD is the experience of discontent following an invidious social comparison with

another group (Smith, Pettigrew, Pippin, & Bialosiewicz, 2012; Walker & Smith,

2002). GRD includes cognitive and affective components that can operate indepen-

dently (Dube & Guimond, 1986). The cognitive component refers to the social

comparison itself, while the affective component refers to the subsequent experience

of discontent (Runciman, 1966). GRD is an important determinant of prejudice

(Pettigrew et al., 2008), but few researchers have considered whether GRG influences

prejudice among members of advantaged groups who are aware of their structurally

privileged status. We view GRG as the inverse of GRD—it refers to the recognition

that one’s in-group compares favorably to some out-group and to the attendant sense of

satisfaction. In our conceptualization, the concept of GRG is akin to what McIntosh

(2012) describes as ‘privilege awareness,’ a condition whereby individuals are

provided with social comparison information and recognize the advantaged status of

their in-group. Further, in line with relative deprivation theory, we contend that

individuals who experience GRG feel entitled to their privileged status (Crosby,

1976). The propitious state of GRG is perhaps not so uncommon. For instance,

according to social identity theory (SIT), a favorable social comparison with the out-

group on the basis of valued dimensions is a decisive step toward achieving positive in-

group distinctiveness (Tajfel, 1978).

In several studies, one group of researchers has shown that a favorable comparison

with a less fortunate out-group (i.e., GRG) is also associated with prejudice (Dambrun,

Guimond, & Taylor, 2006). To explore this link, two groups were compared (Guimond

& Dambrun, 2002, study 2). In the GRG experimental group, psychology students were

144 Soc Just Res (2015) 28:143–167

123

presented with a graph and informed that in comparison with the out-group (law

students), their in-group would benefit from more favorable employment opportunities.

In the control group, this information was not conveyed. In comparison with the control

group, respondents in the experimental group reported higher levels of prejudice toward

ethnic minorities. More germane to the present research, Guimond and Dambrun (2002)

asked participants to respond to perceived intergroup improvement, a temporal measure

of GRG referring to the belief that the in-group will continue to prosper, relative to the

disadvantaged out-group along with the attendant sense of satisfaction. The researchers

discovered that when members of an advantaged group believe their in-group will

continue to prosper, relative to the disadvantaged out-group, they are more likely to

express prejudice. Most notably, this link was significant only for the cognitive

dimension of perceived intergroup improvement. Interestingly, among participants in

the advantaged group, perceived intergroup improvement was associated with

generalized prejudice. The authors suggest that: ‘‘…by placing individuals in a

privileged position and giving them access to a dominant status, the [GRG] condition

may have triggered the need to justify this position, which was expressed by denigrating

not simply a particular group but various outgroups’’ (Guimond & Dambrun, 2002,

p. 904). The negative repercussions of GRG on intergroup perceptions have since been

documented in various social contexts (see Dambrun et al., 2006; Dambrun & Taylor,

2013; Neuwenhuis, 2009), reflecting the social function of prejudice. Borrowing from

social dominance theory (Sidanius & Pratto, 2004), Dambrun and his associates argue

that when members of the in-group are in a privileged position socially or economically,

they are motivated to endorse broad attitudes and beliefs that derogate out-groups in

order to justify and maintain this privilege.

While this rationale certainly attests to the effects of GRG on intergroup perceptions,

it does not account for some conflicting findings. For instance, Tougas and her

collaborators found that men who recognized their favorable status next to women in the

workplace were more likely to support strategies that condemn sexist attitudes and

practices (e.g., Tougas & Veilleux, 1990). In addition, Beaton and Deveau (2005)

demonstrated that Canadian respondents, who acknowledged their privileged status next

to citizens from Third World countries, were more likely to adopt strategies to correct

poverty and oppression. These different results may stem from the social context in

which the studies were conducted—the participants were men working in organizations

with affirmative action policies for women (Tougas & Veilleux, 1990) and college

students participating in a conference designed to increase awareness of Third World

issues (Beaton & Deveau, 2005). In both cases, participants find themselves in a context

that highlights illegitimate and long-standing intergroup inequities. In contrast, research

by Dambrun and his colleagues uses less entrenched group categorizations.

Thus, we suggest that a closer look at features of the intergroup relationship, especially

the legitimacy and the stability of the intergroup inequity, may help reveal the conditions

under which perceived relative group privilege will facilitate out-group derogation.

Legitimacy and Stability

Within SIT, the security of the status hierarchy—that is, its legitimacy and stability—

affects the relationship between high- and low-status groups (Tajfel, 1978). According

Soc Just Res (2015) 28:143–167 145

123

to SIT, illegitimacy refers to an advantaged status based on unfair grounds, while an

unstable privileged status is defined as one that is threatened to change for the worse.

The few studies that have examined the causal effect of the legitimacy (Harth,

Kessler, & Leach, 2008; Miron, Branscombe, & Schmitt, 2006, study 2) or stability

(Cunningham & Platow, 2007) of the intergroup relationship on attitudes and

behaviors have provided compelling evidence of the power of these socio-structural

features. However, research has not tested the causal effect of the legitimacy or

stability of a favorable in-group position on mechanisms conducive to prejudice.

This important issue must be addressed to uncover the structural elements of the

intergroup relationship that are conducive to hostile prejudice. Therefore, the purpose of

this two-part research is to examine how the legitimacy (Study 1) and the stability (Study

2) of the status of the advantaged group alter the relationship between GRG and

traditional racist attitudes toward Aboriginal people. Traditional racism is defined as a

hierarchy-enhancing ideology that is based on the belief of the inherent inferiority of the

ethnic group and support for racial segregation (Brown, 2010). In this sense, traditional

racism is the epitome of an ideology that justifies and maintains entrenched intergroup

inequalities. Although strong egalitarian norms, not to mention legislation, prohibit the

expression of such derogatory and hostile racism, traditional racism still emerges as a

function of specific social contexts (Dovidio & Gaertner, 2004; Rogers & Prentice-

Dunn, 1981) and individual predispositions (Beaton, Dovidio, & LeBlanc, 2011). In

other words, traditional racism is a contextually dependent hierarchy-enhancing

ideology that will be mobilized among individuals who are so inclined. Based on this

reasoning, we propose that by framing the security of the status hierarchy, we can create

the conditions that will allow participants who experience GRG to call upon traditional

racist attitudes to protect the position of the privileged in-group.

Study 1

This study investigates whether the legitimacy of the advantaged status moderates the

link between GRG and prejudice. The study’s method was drawn in part from Guimond

and Dambrun (2002). Status advantage was manipulated by presenting to participants a

graph featuring the superiority of the in-group relative to the out-group, depicting

evidence that job opportunities for the in-group were improving over time in comparison

with another group. The legitimacy of the advantaged status was manipulated in the

short paragraph following the graph whereby a legitimate explanation, an illegitimate

explanation or no explanation for the superiority of the in-group was provided.

We expect that the link between GRG and traditional prejudice will vary as a function

of the legitimacy of the advantaged status (Beaton & Deveau, 2005; Guimond &

Dambrun, 2002; Tougas & Veilleux, 1990). Specifically, when participants are

informed that their advantaged group status is based on legitimate, rather than

illegitimate grounds, the link between GRG and traditional prejudice will be significant

and positive. Finally, our research was designed to examine whether a relative privileged

condition is conducive to the expression of a hostile and overt form of out-group

derogation (i.e., traditional racism), over and beyond a general orientation toward group-

based inequality (Schmitt et al., 2003; Sidanius & Pratto, 2004). To address this issue, we

146 Soc Just Res (2015) 28:143–167

123

control for modern racism and social dominance orientation in order to examine the

unique relationship between GRG and traditional prejudice.

Methods

Participants

A total of 141 students from the Universite de Moncton participated in this study.

Eight participants were deleted from the data set because they did not have a

Canadian citizenship.1 As a result, the sample consisted of 133 White participants

who were mostly women (78.2 %) and on average, 24.8 years of age.

Procedure

In spring 2008, participants completed a survey on social perceptions, in groups of

approximately 10–20 students. These students were randomly assigned to one of four

experimental conditions. In the control condition (n = 19), participants completed the

survey and no graph or information was provided concerning their group status. In the

remaining three experimental conditions, participants were informed of their

advantaged group status with a technique drawn from Guimond and Dambrun

(2002). The survey began with a brief section of an ostensible report by the

Government of Canada on the employment rate of graduates from their alma mater

(Universite de Moncton) and another university situated in the same region

(University of New Brunswick). Both universities are located in the province of

New Brunswick and are considered comprehensive universities. Both universities,

however, have distinguishing features within the Canadian context. The Universite de

Moncton is the largest French university in Canada that is located outside of the

province of Quebec. Although most students are of Acadian descent, in 2012–2013,

8.31 % of the student body was represented by international students. The University

of New Brunswick is the oldest English language university in Canada. While it is

almost double the size of the Universite de Moncton in terms of student enrollment,

the University of New Brunswick has a comparable level of international students

(7.02 %) (Maritime Provinces Higher Education Commission, 2014). There is no

history of entrenched conflict between the institutions. Students from the Universite

de Moncton and the University of New Brunswick share a relatively equal status.

The employment rate was illustrated in a graph that ranged from the year 2003–2015.

In the graph, the employment rate in 2003 was illustrated as similar for the graduates of

both universities, but progressively improving for graduates from the Universite de

Moncton in the current and forthcoming years. Under the graph, participants read a

summary of the labor market trend for graduates from the Universite de Moncton and

from the University of New Brunswick. Following the summary, the three experimental

conditions varied according to how information concerning the legitimacy of the

advantaged status was conveyed. In the graph with no explanation (n = 37),

1 At the Universite de Moncton, the job market for international students without Canadian citizenship is

restricted to on-campus employment only.

Soc Just Res (2015) 28:143–167 147

123

respondents read the information contained in the summary and nothing else. In the

graph with a legitimate explanation (n = 38), an excerpt was added to provide a

legitimate explanation for the advantaged status of graduates of the Universite de

Moncton. The legitimate explanation was based on the merit principle. In the graph with

an illegitimate explanation (n = 37), respondents read an excerpt describing an

illegitimate explanation for the advantaged status of graduates of the Universite de

Moncton. The illegitimate explanation was based on unfair favoritism. Please see

Appendix for further details concerning these manipulations. After reading the official

report, participants completed a survey written in French containing the variables used in

this study, were then thanked and properly debriefed.

Measures

A French survey was administered. When appropriate, measures were translated

into French by a professional translator followed with a back-translation procedure

(Vallerand, 1989). Responses to statements were collected on a 7-point scale

(1 = completely disagree and 7 = completely agree).

Manipulation Checks To examine whether the legitimacy and privileged status

manipulations were effective, participants responded to the following statements:

‘‘The superior employment rate of the Universite de Moncton graduates is due to a

cause that is illegal’’ and ‘‘I believe that, in comparison with the graduates of

Universite de Moncton, graduates from the University of New Brunswick are

disadvantaged as to their rate of employment.’’

Traditional Racism Traditional racism is defined as the belief that an ethnic group

is inherently inferior to Whites and should be segregated (Brown, 2010). Traditional

racism directed toward Aboriginal people was measured with an adaptation of the

11-item scale developed by Walker (1994) (e.g., ‘‘I wouldn’t like any member of my

family to marry an Aboriginal person’’; ‘‘If an Aboriginal person sat next to me on a

bus or train I would feel uncomfortable’’). Two items were modified to better fit a

Canadian context. High scores reflect a greater endorsement of traditional racial

prejudice directed toward Aboriginal people in Canada (a = 0.68, k6 = 0.74).2

Modern Racism This construct refers to the view that discrimination toward

ethnic minorities is no longer a concern in our society and that members of these

groups are pushing too strongly for change. According to this belief, any gains made

by ethnic minorities are undeserved and unfair (McConahay, 1986). A 7-item

measure of modern racism, adapted from Augoustinos, Ahrens and Innes (1994)

(e.g., ‘‘Aboriginal people are getting too demanding in their push for land rights’’;

‘‘Aboriginal people have more influence on government policy than they ought to

have’’), was included in the survey to tap into contemporary prejudice directed

toward Aboriginal people in Canada (a = 0.54, k6 = 0.60).

Social Dominance Orientation This refers to the extent to which a person values

non-egalitarian and hierarchically structured relationships among social groups

2 Research has revealed limitations to the Cronbach’s alpha and proposes the use of Guttman’s lower

bound statistic as a better indicator of internal consistency (Sijtsma, 2009). Therefore, throughout the

paper, the highest lambda of the six lower bounds is also presented.

148 Soc Just Res (2015) 28:143–167

123

(Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). We used the SDO6, which has 16 items (e.g., ‘‘Some

groups of people are simply inferior to other groups’’; ‘‘Inferior groups should stay

in their place’’). High scores reflect a greater preference for group-based inequality

and dominance (a = 0.85, k6 = 0.91).

Group Relative Gratification Following Guimond and Dambrun (2002),

participants were invited to speculate on their in-group’s prospects with a cognitive

measure of GRG termed perceived intergroup improvement.3 There were two items:

‘‘I feel that the fate of graduates from the Universite de Moncton is improving

relative to that of graduates from the University of New Brunswick,’’ and ‘‘In the

next few years, graduates from the Universite de Moncton will have much better job

opportunities than graduates from the University of New Brunswick.’’ High scores

indicate greater perception of improvement of the in-group’s status relative to the

out-group; therefore, greater GRG.4

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Three univariate outliers (Z ± 3.29) were removed from analyses, leaving 130

participants. As a manipulation check, we tested whether the government report lead

participants to recognize the privileged status of the in-group relative to the

disadvantaged out-group. A one-way ANOVA revealed a significant difference in

perceived privilege status, F(3, 125) = 3.45, p = .02, g2 = 0.08. As expected,

planned comparisons showed that, irrespective of the type of explanation given for the

in-group’s advantaged status (no explanation, legitimate explanation and illegitimate

explanation), participants presented with a graph illustrating the advantaged status of

the in-group were more likely to recognize the disadvantaged status of the out-group

(M = 4.10, SD = 1.60) than were participants not provided with such information

(control condition: M = 3.26, SD = 1.24), F(1, 125) = 4.75, p = .03, g2 = 0.04.

Another manipulation check was also tested: perceived legitimacy. It was revealed

that perceived legitimacy of the in-group advantaged status differed across the three

conditions in which legitimacy was manipulated, F(2, 108) = 7.40, p = .001,

g2 = 0.12. Tukey’s post hoc tests showed that participants who read the illegitimate

explanation perceived their in-group’s advantaged status as significantly more

illegitimate (M = 2.36, SD = 2.36) than participants in the legitimate (M = 1.42,

SD = 1.06, p = .003) or no explanation conditions (M = 1.46, SD = 0.90,

p = .004). Ratings in the legitimate and no explanation conditions did not differ

(p = .99). Consistent with previous research (Harth et al., 2008), this suggests that a

legitimate explanation is the default assumption for most people (i.e., people assume a

just world) even when no explanation is given for the advantaged status. Based on this

3 Drawing upon the work of Guimond and Dambrun (2002), a measure of perceived improvement over

time was also assessed and entered into the analyses in Study 1 and Study 2. However, no reliable patterns

emerged.4 The affective dimension of GRG was also measured. These results can be made available upon request.

Soc Just Res (2015) 28:143–167 149

123

result and further analyses,5 participants in the legitimate and the no explanation

conditions were combined to form one group named legitimate status. Thus, the

legitimacy variable was transformed to form two groups: legitimate status

(participants in the legitimate explanation condition combined with those from the

no explanation condition) and illegitimate status (participants in the illegitimate

explanation condition). Descriptive analyses and correlations for all variables

included in our main analyses can be found in Table 1.6

Main Analyses

Prior to regression analyses, centered values for GRG were computed. The

moderator (legitimacy of the advantaged status) was coded as 0 for the legitimate

status and 1 for the illegitimate status.

A multiple regression analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between

the independent variable (GRG—perceived intergroup improvement), the moderator

(the legitimacy of the advantaged status—either legitimate or illegitimate) and their

interaction on the dependent variable, traditional racism, while taking into account the

effects of modern racism and social dominance orientation, Radjusted2 = 0.48, F(5,

98) = 19.98, p \ .001.7 This regression was qualified by a significant interaction

between the legitimacy of the advantaged status and GRG (see Table 2). To probe

5 To explore whether the combination of these two conditions (no explanation, legitimate explanation)

significantly altered results, regression analyses were conducted by creating two dummy variables:

legitimate (vs. illegitimate) and no explanation (vs. illegitimate). The referent group was the illegitimate

explanation condition. The multiple regression analysis was conducted to examine the relationship

between the independent variable, that is, GRG (i.e., perceived intergroup improvement), the moderators

(legitimate vs. illegitimate and no explanation vs. illegitimate) and their respective interactions

(GRG 9 legitimate, GRG 9 no explanation), on the dependent variable, traditional racism. Note that

modern racism and social dominance orientation were entered into the analysis. Findings point to a

significant GRG 9 legitimate (vs. illegitimate) interaction, B = 0.19, SE = 0.09, b = 0.25, p = 0.03,

and a marginally significant GRG 9 no explanation (vs. illegitimate) interaction, B = 0.17, SE = 0.09,

b = 0.21, p = 0.06. These results provide evidence that the legitimate and no explanation conditions

reflect a similar trend and additional justification for combining both conditions in the principal analysis.6 In Study 1, t tests were conducted to examine whether women and men differed on the basis of the

variables contained in the analysis. A Bonferroni correction was used to adjust for multiple pairwise

comparisons (p = 0.006). No significant differences between men and women were detected. In Study 2,

responses of men and women were compared with a series of t tests (Bonferroni correction, p = 0.008).

Significant differences were found with respect to modern racism, t(148) = -3.65, p \ 0.001, whereby

men reported higher modern racist views (M = 3.54) than women (M = 2.95). Men further expressed

greater social dominance orientation (M = 2.32) than women (M = 1.82), t(148) = -3.56, p = 0.001.

Multiple regression analyses were also conducted to examine whether including gender in the analysis

altered the results. According to results, adding gender to the main analyses did not affect the pattern of

results for Study 1 and Study 2.7 A one-way analysis of variance was conducted to examine whether the experimental conditions

(legitimacy, illegitimacy, no explanation, control) had an effect on the variables contained in Study 1. The

analysis revealed a nonsignificant effect for modern racism (p = 0.31) and social dominance orientation

(p = 0.59). However, a significant effect of the experimental conditions was obtained for the measure of

GRG (i.e., perceived intergroup improvement, p = 0.001). A one-way analysis of variance was also

conducted to examine the effect of the experimental conditions (stable, in-group decline, out-group

progress, control) on the variables contained in Study 2. Findings reveal that the manipulations were not

associated with modern racism (p = 0.26) and social dominance orientation (p = 0.49). However, the

experimental conditions were associated with GRG (i.e., perceived intergroup improvement, p = 0.001).

150 Soc Just Res (2015) 28:143–167

123

this significant interaction, two new conditional variables for the moderator were

computed (Aiken & West, 1991). Post hoc regression analyses were conducted to

examine the statistical significance of the slopes of the simple regression lines. Both

equation lines are plotted in Fig. 1. As predicted, for respondents in the legitimate

condition, GRG was positively associated with traditional racism (B = 0.09,

SE = 0.04, b = 0.18, p = .04). When the advantaged in-group status was based

on legitimate grounds, participants, who believe that their privileged status is

improving relative to that of the out-group, report more traditional racism. However,

this relationship did not reach significance among participants in the illegitimate

condition (B = -0.09, SE = 0.07, b = -0.20, p = .19).8

Discussion

This first study shows that the legitimacy of the advantaged status moderates the

link between GRG and traditional racism. Specifically, in the legitimate condition,

GRG is associated with traditional racism. Yet, when participants are informed that

gains made by their advantaged group are based on illegitimate grounds, the link

between GRG and traditional prejudice did not reach significance.

Findings obtained in the legitimate condition are consistent with Guimond and

Dambrun (2002, study 2) and further clarify the factors that precipitate the downside

of GRG. In a legitimate condition, advantaged group members who believe that

their in-group’s status will improve relative to an out-group express traditional

Table 1 Descriptive analyses

and correlations for variables

included in Study 1 and Study 2

* p \ .05; ** p \ .01

Variables 1 2 3 4

Study 1

1. Traditional racism – 0.53** 0.53** -0.03

2. Modern racism – 0.21* -0.14

3. Social dominance orientation – -0.07

4. GRG –

M 1.84 2.97 1.77 5.07

SD 0.54 0.89 0.69 1.11

Study 2

1. Traditional racism – 0.54** 0.62** 0.15

2. Modern racism – 0.42** -0.02

3. Social dominance orientation – -0.02

4. GRG –

M 2.18 3.09 1.92 3.50

SD 0.64 0.88 0.75 1.29

Footnote 7 continued

These findings suggest that the experimental conditions in both studies were not associated with modern

racism and social dominance orientation and further justify their inclusion in the model.8 In Study 1 and Study 2, multiple regression analyses were conducted to examine whether this pattern of

findings could be replicated with other measures of intergroup conflict—namely modern racism and

social dominance orientation as the dependent variable. No significant effects were uncovered.

Soc Just Res (2015) 28:143–167 151

123

prejudice. This finding is rather paradoxical: Although advantaged group members

had been informed (or assumed) that their group had benefited from the merit

principle, a positive view of their continued prosperity compared to a less fortunate

out-group is associated with a non-egalitarian ideology (e.g., prejudice). Drawing

from social dominance theory (Sidanius & Pratto, 2004), this might suggest that

traditional prejudice is a means used by the advantaged group members to lend

weight to the belief in their in-group’s flourishing fate relative to a disadvantaged

out-group. Another explanation would be that in the legitimate condition, traditional

prejudice is an attractive way to maintain intergroup inequalities from a safe

vantage point. Legitimacy endows them with carte blanche on the means used to

promote their relative advantage. Research has attested to the importance of in-

group norms and out-group derogation among participants who occupy a privileged

group (Postmes & Smith, 2009). Our findings suggest that the effect of GRG on

prejudice demonstrated in previous experiments may have occurred because the

improvement of the in-group was perceived as legitimate by default (Guimond &

Dambrun, 2002).

Table 2 Results of regression analyses for Study 1

Parameter B SE b t p

Constant 0.30 0.16 1.85 0.06

Modern racism 0.30 0.04 0.47 6.32 0.00

Social dominance orientation 0.32 0.05 0.41 5.67 0.00

GRG 0.08 0.04 0.17 2.13 0.03

Legitimacy 0.11 0.08 0.10 1.35 0.17

GRG 9 legitimacy -0.17 0.08 -0.18 -2.22 0.02

Dependent variable = traditional racism

Fig. 1 Regression lines for therelationship between GRG andtraditional racism as moderatedby the legitimacy of theadvantaged status

152 Soc Just Res (2015) 28:143–167

123

Not all members of an advantaged group resort to prejudice. Participants in the

illegitimate condition who believe that their advantaged in-group will continue to

prosper in comparison with a disadvantaged referent group do not endorse

traditional prejudice views. Perhaps in this case, when light is shed on intergroup

injustice, blatant bias is not an attractive means to maintain group-based hierarchies.

These results lend credence to McIntosh’s (1989) view of the breakthroughs that

accrue when undeserved group-based privileges are highlighted.

We recognize that GRG is one of many ways in which an individual may

experience privilege (see Leach, Snider, & Iyer, 2002) and should be distinguished

from other states, namely collective guilt. Members of a privileged group will

experience collective guilt when the intergroup inequality is framed as the result of

undeserved in-group privilege (Leach et al., 2002; Whol, Branscombe, & Klar,

2006). In this case, members of the high-status group recognize that their benefits

are due to ongoing structural inequalities and claim responsibility for the harm

inflicted on the out-group. Although this is not the focus of the present study, we

believe that an integration of causal attribution theory and the experience of relative

privilege/deprivation could further help articulate the conditions that distinguish

GRG from the experience of collective guilt (Walker, Wong, & Kretzschmar 2002).

This study represents the first endeavor to examine the unique effect of a legitimate

in-group advantaged status, while controlling for the stability of the advantaged status.

Within SIT, illegitimacy constitutes a threat to the in-group’s status, and possibly

indeed to the social system itself, and in-group members are motivated to react to that

threat. Although legitimacy and stability often covary (Bettencourt, Dorr, Charlton, &

Hume, 2001; Tajfel, 1981), theoretically and logically, they are separate character-

istics in the social system.9 Interestingly, the legitimacy manipulation did not

represent an important source of insecurity for our respondents. Participants did not

evaluate the illegitimate explanation as relatively illegal (the mean was 2.36 on a

7-point scale). Perhaps in this instance, our respondents were swept by a predominant

need to justify a status quo. In the next study, we introduce a stability manipulation

meant to better reflect an insecure system for a privileged group. In this instance, the

respondents are provided information concerning the long-term viability of the high-

status in-group. Hence, in our second study, we shift our focus to perceptions of

stability as a source of threat to system security.

Study 2

The purpose of the second study is to manipulate the stability of the advantaged

status relative to a disadvantaged out-group to understand how this structural

dimension of the intergroup context will influence the link between GRG and

traditional racism, while controlling for the legitimacy of the intergroup inequality.

9 To address Tajfel’s (1981) concerns that both the legitimacy and stability of the intergroup relation are

sometimes confounded, we tested whether the legitimacy of the advantaged status varied across the three

experimental conditions where stability was manipulated in Study 2 (stable, out-group progress, in-group

decline). There was no difference between the conditions on perceived legitimacy, F(2, 150) = 0.25,

p [ 0.05, g2 = 0.00.

Soc Just Res (2015) 28:143–167 153

123

Unstable access to valuable resources for an individual (Grofman & Muller, 1973) or

a group (Davies, 1962) has been related to civil unrest. According to these authors, a

prolonged period of economic and social prosperity followed by a short period of sharp

reversal creates an unstable situation that gives rise to turmoil. In one study (de la

Sablonniere, Taylor, Perozzo, & Sadykova, 2008), participants who viewed instability,

rather than stability, in their country’s economic prosperity during critical periods in

their history were less likely to experience collective well-being. These studies,

however, were designed to examine the effect of variability in the unique in-group or

individual conditions over time. In the next study, we take a different look at stability by

considering changes to the distribution of valuable resources between two groups.

Members of a high-status group experience distress when they learn of the potential

downfall of its dominant position next to a relevant out-group (Scheepers, 2009); yet, the

effect of the instability of the status hierarchies on out-group derogation has been under

investigated. In one exception, Cunningham and Platow (2007) showed that when

members of the advantaged group learn that their status is unstable (vs. stable) relative to

a disadvantaged out-group, the former are more likely to provide assistance to in-group

rather than lower status out-group members. Drawing from this work, we predict that

when the status of the advantaged group is sliding, respondents will call upon attitudes

and beliefs that will secure their privileged status (Sidanius & Pratto, 2004). Specifically,

in an unstable condition, belief in the in-group’s hegemony will increase the likelihood

of out-group derogation. This second study will test this contention by examining among

high-status group members, the relationship between GRG and traditional prejudice

when the intergroup hierarchy is stable or unstable. Furthermore, two forms of instability

are considered in this study: a decline in the advantaged status of the in-group and an

improvement in standing of the disadvantaged out-group. To date, reactions of the

advantaged group to these two nuances have not been the subject of investigation.

Therefore, the study will investigate whether the roles of instability that stem from in-

group downfall or out-group ascent are analogous.

In SIT, stability refers to change to the social system. Drawing upon this

conceptualization, the manipulation of the stability of the social system in Study 2

was meant to maintain (stable manipulation) or reduce (unstable manipulation) the gap

between the advantaged and disadvantaged groups. A nuance was added to the source of

the instability. Specifically, the instability was either due to a dip in the advantaged status

of the in-group (unstable, in-group decline) or an increase in the status of the out-group

(unstable, out-group progress). In the first case, in line with the stability conceptual-

ization of SIT, participants were notified of a threat to the favorable status of the in-

group. They learned that the rate of employment of the in-group was decreasing, and this

trend was expected to continue over time. In the second case, participants were informed

that change was due to gains from members of the disadvantaged group. In this condition

(unstable, out-group progress), participants learned of an increase in the rate of

employment of the out-group, that was predicted to continue over time, thereby reducing

the gap between both groups. Yet, it is important to note that irrespective of the origins of

the instability, the in-group remained in a privileged status.

This study will examine whether the link between GRG and traditional prejudice is

moderated by the stability of the intergroup relation, using a similar method to the first

study. Participants viewed a graph that depicted better employment rates for the in-

154 Soc Just Res (2015) 28:143–167

123

group relative to the out-group. In the stable condition, the graph illustrated a superior

employment rate for the in-group relative to the out-group that persisted over time. In

the instability in-group decline condition, the discrepancy between the advantaged in-

group and out-group remains constant until there is a sudden drop in employment rates

among members of the in-group; whereas in the instability out-group progress

condition, the intergroup discrepancy remains constant until the employment rate of

members of the out-group sharply increases. Therefore, this second study was

designed to examine instability that stemmed from an increased access to resources for

the out-group or decreased access to resources for the in-group.

We hypothesized that the link between GRG and traditional prejudice would vary

as a function of the stability of the advantaged status, even after controlling for

modern prejudice and social dominance orientation. When participants are informed

of an unstable, rather than stable, advantaged status, the link between GRG and

traditional prejudice is predicted to be significant and positive.

Methods

Participants

A total of 199 students from the Universite de Moncton participated in this study.

Eleven participants were excluded because they did not have a Canadian

citizenship. Therefore, the sample consisted of 188 White participants, mostly

women (74.2 %) and on average 20.6 years of age.

Procedure

In the fall 2009, participants were randomly distributed into four experimental

conditions. In the control condition (n = 33), respondents completed the survey and

no information was provided concerning the employment rate of graduates nor the

status of their in-group. In the remaining three conditions, respondents were

informed of the advantaged status of their in-group in a fictitious report by the

Government of Canada. Information was conveyed about the stability of the

advantaged status of the in-group by introducing three conditions: stable, in-group

decline and out-group progress (see ‘‘Appendix’’). In the stable condition (n = 46),

participants were presented a graph illustrating a superior employment rate for

graduates from the Universite de Moncton, rather than graduates from the

University of New Brunswick. The gap between both groups remained constant

and persisted over time. Under the graph, participants read a summary of the trend

of the employment status of graduates from the Universite de Moncton and the

University of New Brunswick. Respondents in the in-group decline condition

(n = 53) were presented with a graph depicting a superior employment rate for

graduates from the Universite de Moncton, and a steady decline that begins in 2006.

Despite the decline, the employment rate of graduates from the Universite de

Moncton remained superior to that of graduates from the University of New

Brunswick. Under the graph, an excerpt was added to describe this drop in the

employment rate of graduates from the Universite de Moncton. In the out-group

Soc Just Res (2015) 28:143–167 155

123

progress condition (n = 56), the employment rate for the out-group (i.e., graduates

from the University of New Brunswick) begins to improve in 2006. Although the

employment rate of the in-group remained higher than that of the out-group, the gap

was predicted to grow smaller over the years. Under the graph, respondents read an

excerpt that described the out-group progress trend. After reading the report,

participants completed a survey containing the variables in this study, were all

thanked and debriefed.

Measures

The measures presented in the second study were similar to the ones used in Study

1: modern racism (a = 0.74, k4 = 0.78), social dominance orientation (a = 0.88,

k6 = 0.90) and the cognitive measure of GRG, that is, perceived intergroup

improvement. There were two differences in the second study: an item was added in

the survey to check the manipulation of the stability of the advantaged status, and a

different traditional racism scale was used.

Manipulation Check of Stability To examine whether the stability manipulation

was effective, participants indicated the extent to which the advantaged status of the

in-group was stable or unstable (from 1 = unstable to 7 = stable).

Traditional Racism A 10-item measure of traditional racism toward Aboriginal

people with better reliability than the scale used in Study 1 was included (a = 0.90;

see Beaton et al., 2011). Examples of items included in this scale are ‘‘Although

there are some exceptions, in general, non-Aboriginal people have a better

understanding of what is the right way to behave than Aboriginal people,’’ ‘‘One

possible strategy to avoid conflict is for Aboriginal people and non-Aboriginal

people to stay in their own districts and avoid too much contact.’’ High scores reflect

greater prejudice toward Aboriginal people in Canada (a = 0.71, k6 = 0.74).

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Three univariate outliers were removed (Z ± 3.29), leaving a sample of 185

respondents. We tested the effectiveness of the experimental manipulations (i.e., the

advantaged status of the in-group and the stability of the intergroup relation). A one-

way ANOVA revealed a significant difference in perceived privilege status across the

four conditions, F(3, 181) = 5.93, p = .001, g2 = 0.09. As expected, planned

comparison revealed that, irrespective of the stability of their in-group’s status (stable,

in-group decline, out-group progress), participants who were informed of their

advantaged group status with the graph were more likely to recognize the greater

disadvantaged status of the out-group relative to their in-group (M = 3.99,

SD = 1.55) than did participants who were not provided with such information

(control condition: M = 2.94, SD = 1.66), F(1, 181) = 12.72, p \ .001, g2 = 0.07.

Perceived stability of the intergroup relation varied across the three conditions in which

stability was manipulated, F(2, 149) = 7.69, p = .001, g2 = 0.09. Post hoc Tukey

analyses revealed that participants in the in-group decline condition attributed more

156 Soc Just Res (2015) 28:143–167

123

instability (M = 3.61, SD = 1.56) than respondents in the out-group progress

(M = 4.49, SD = 1.43, p = .009) and stable (M = 4.74, SD = 1.56, p = .001)

conditions. These findings suggest that instability is associated with in-group decline

rather than out-group progress. Furthermore, no significant differences were uncovered

between the out-group progress and stable conditions (p = .69), which suggests that

instability due to out-group progress is perceived as a stable rather than unstable

advantaged status. Accordingly, participants in the out-group progress and stable

conditions were combined to form one group named stable status. The stability variable

was transformed to form two groups: stable status (participants in the out-group progress

and stable conditions) and unstable status (participants in the in-group decline

condition).10 Descriptive analyses and correlations for all variables appear in Table 1.

Main Analyses

Prior to regression analyses, GRG was centered and ratings of the stability of the

advantaged status were recoded (0 = stable status, 1 = unstable status) for the

moderator.

A multiple regression analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between

the independent variable, GRG (i.e., perceived intergroup improvement), the moderator,

the stability of the advantaged status (stable status or unstable status) and their

interaction on the dependent variable, traditional racism, while taking into account the

effects of modern racism and social dominance orientation, Radjusted2 = 0.53, F(5,

140) = 33.88, p \ .001. There was a significant interaction between the stability of the

intergroup relationship and GRG on traditional racism (see Table 3). This finding was

followed by a simple effects analysis of the relationship between GRG and the

dependent variable traditional racism at different levels of the moderator (i.e., the

stability of the intergroup relationship). Both equation lines are plotted in Fig. 2. As

expected, in the unstable condition, GRG was positively associated with traditional

racism (B = 0.20, SE = 0.05,b = 0.39, p \ .01), but this link was not significant in the

stable condition (B = 0.03, SE = 0.04, b = 0.06, p = .46).

Discussion

This second study showed that the stability of the advantaged status moderated the

link between perceived intergroup improvement (GRG) and traditional racism.

10 To explore whether the combination of these two conditions (out-group progress and stable)

significantly altered results, regression analyses were conducted by creating two dummy variables:

stability (vs. in-group decline) and out-group progress (vs. in-group decline). The referent group was the

in-group decline condition. A multiple regression analysis was conducted to examine the relationship

between the independent variable, GRG (i.e., perceived intergroup improvement), the moderators (stable

vs. in-group decline and out-group progress vs. in-group decline) and their interaction on the dependent

variable, traditional racism, while taking into account the effects of modern racism and social dominance

orientation, Radjusted2 = 0.54, F(7, 138) = 24.86, p \ 0.001. According to results, the interaction effect

between the independent variable and the moderator, instability out-group progress, was significant,

B = -0.16, SE = 0.07, b = -0.16, p = 0.03, and the interaction effect between the independent

variable and the moderator, stability, was marginally significant, B = -0.15, SE = 0.09, b = -0.14,

p = 0.07. These results provide evidence that the out-group progress and stable conditions reflect a

similar trend and additional justification for combining both conditions in the principal analysis.

Soc Just Res (2015) 28:143–167 157

123

When participants viewed their privileged status as declining, the link between

GRG and traditional prejudice was positive. However, when respondents viewed the

progress of the out-group or were informed of the stable privileged status, GRG did

not significantly covary with traditional racism.

Our findings in Study 2 suggest that for members of a fortunate group, instability

in the favorable status of the in-group, coupled with the conviction that the fate of

the in-group will improve in comparison with the out-group, account for traditional

prejudice. The findings in Study 2 also show that members of an advantaged group

may not always resort to prejudice in order to maintain their privileged position. In

the stable condition and when the status of the out-group was improving, the link

between GRG and traditional prejudice was annulled. Perhaps in this condition,

participants see no need to be prejudiced if their status is going to remain constant

anyway. However, research is needed to examine whether in the stable condition,

participants who endorse GRG turn to other kind of strategies that assure the

hegemony of the advantaged group, such as in-group favoritism.

These studies further point to the importance of framing the source of the

instability. Findings suggest that the mechanisms conducive to hostile racist views

are more likely when the instability is framed as in-group loss rather than out-group

gains. This result is in line with work conducted by Eibach and Keegan (2006)

whereby both sources of instability reflect different experiences for members of a

dominant group. Change is viewed as most significant when the favorable status of

the in-group is attributed to loss. In this instance, Eibach and Keegan (2006) explain

that members of the dominant group have a vested interested in maintaining their

favorable status thus are more sensitive to the decline of their privileged status.

General Discussion

The purpose of this research was to uncover parts of the social system that maintain

group-based hierarchy. The message from these findings is that for members of a

privileged group, its legitimacy and stability have the power to sustain or sever the

relationship between GRG and traditional prejudice. In Study 1, results reveal that

for members of a privileged group, the legitimacy of their advantaged status

matters: Participants who experience GRG are more likely to report traditional

prejudice in the legitimate rather than the illegitimate condition. Findings from the

second study point to the moderating effects of the stability of the intergroup

inequity. Instability that stems from a drop in the privileged in-group’s status

provides a context that facilitates the relationship between GRG and traditional

prejudice. In other words, for those who recognized that their in-group was falling

behind, a belief in a more prosperous future (i.e., GRG) was associated with out-

group derogation of an ethnic minority.

Both studies extend previous work (Dambrun et al., 2006) by identifying the

specific conditions that facilitate the association between GRG and traditional

prejudice. In this sense, both studies reveal how traditional prejudice is employed in

ways that advance the interests and address the concerns of the privileged in-group.

When advantage is portrayed as the result of a legitimate system (e.g., the merit

158 Soc Just Res (2015) 28:143–167

123

principle), participants who perceive better prospects for their group relative to a

disadvantaged out-group call upon traditional prejudice to justify the intergroup

inequalities. Traditional prejudice can be seen as an insurance policy for members

of the advantaged group: It supports group-based hierarchy and by the same token,

in-group hegemony. Better prospects for the in-group are more likely if a

disadvantaged ethnic out-group is construed as problematic. Traditional prejudice is

couched within what was described as a socially acceptable system. Therefore,

disadvantaged out-groups that fail to prosper within these parameters are assumed to

be flawed. Leach (2002) discusses Myrdal’s notion that egalitarianism works to

limit the perception of inequality and can lead to racism. Accordingly, the belief that

society is egalitarian can blind people to the ways in which it is not and protects

their idealized image of their society as fair and equal. Together, our findings reflect

what Sidanius and Pratto (2004) describe as a covert way to uphold hierarchy-

enhancing legitimizing myths.

In the second study, the stability of the group-based discrepancy was found to

moderate the relationship between GRG and traditional racism. Specifically, in an

unstable context whereby the privileged in-group is declining relative to the

disadvantaged out-group, participants who report GRG (i.e., perceived intergroup

Table 3 Results of regression

analyses for Study 2

Dependent

variable = traditional racism

Parameter B SE b t p

Constant 0.60 0.14 4.22 0.00

Modern racism 0.24 0.04 0.32 5.19 0.00

Social dominance orientation 0.40 0.5 0.48 7.57 0.00

GRG 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.74 0.45

Stability 0.20 0.08 0.15 2.40 0.01

GRG 9 stability 0.16 0.06 0.21 2.64 0.00

Fig. 2 Regression lines for therelationship between GRG andtraditional racism as moderatedby the stability of theadvantaged status

Soc Just Res (2015) 28:143–167 159

123

improvement) also express traditional prejudice. Perhaps by providing participants

with information concerning the precarious nature of the in-group status, the second

study raises a concern among participants who anticipate better days ahead for the

in-group and thus resort to traditional prejudice to defend their positive perception

of the future. Findings also suggest that the source of the instability matters. It

would seem that improving the lot of the disadvantaged out-group may be less

threatening than taking away benefits accrued by the advantaged in-group. This

result contains interesting implications for policy meant to redress intergroup

inequalities.

Although stability and legitimacy refer to the relative security of the social

system, our findings reveal that they are experienced differently for members of a

privileged group. The legitimacy frame conveys information about the origins of the

intergroup inequality—whether the advantage is an earned strength or unearned

advantage (McIntosh, 1989). In this manner, when the privilege is described as one

that is based on meritocracy, GRG is associated with traditional racism. Stability of

the advantaged status pertains to the precarious nature of the privileged status over

time. When members of an advantaged group expect that their favorable status will

be undermined in the future, the experience of GRG is positively related to

traditional racism.

Interestingly, these two studies consider prejudice directed toward an out-group

that is not portrayed in the report as a direct competitor to employment

opportunities. Recall that participants were informed of the relative access to

employment for Universite de Moncton and University of New Brunswick

graduates, but we measured out-group derogation directed toward Aboriginal

people. This finding replicates the results obtained in previous work (Guimond &

Dambrun, 2002) whereby participants in the GRG condition (i.e., in-group = psy-

chology students, out-group = law students) who perceived intergroup improve-

ment reported negative attitudes toward ethnic out-groups in general. The current

research has revealed that the nature of the social structure of the intergroup

relationship can trigger traditional racist attitudes among privileged group members

who perceive the status of their in-group improving relative to a less fortunate out-

group. Indeed, previous research has provided consistent support that GRG is

associated with prejudice toward low-status ethnic groups, independently of the

source of the threat to the high-status in-group (see Dambrun et al., 2006, for a

review). These findings may seem puzzling: Why would respondents in the current

study who report high scores on the measure of GRG denigrate Aboriginal people,

in the wake of a threat from graduates of another university? Postmes and Smith

(2009) have made a compelling argument to account for this phenomenon. These

authors argue that members of a high-status group will respond strategically to the

norms of the privileged group in order to demonstrate ‘‘their in-group credentials or

to gain influence over and redefine in-group norms.’’ (p. 774). These authors found

that respondents in a relative gratification condition who are informed that members

of the high-status group approve of intolerant, rather than benevolent norms, are

more likely to respond in a prejudiced manner toward an ethnic out-group. In line

with this rationale, perhaps the features of the social structure (legitimacy, stability)

increase the propensity of members of an advantaged group to affirm their

160 Soc Just Res (2015) 28:143–167

123

privileged status by directing their derogatory attitudes toward ethnic groups. More

research is needed to better understand whether the social structure of the intergroup

relationship conveys a different set of norms for tolerance among high-status group

members.

While the Postmes and Smith (2009) argument offers a new way of accounting

for the relationship between relative gratification and prejudice, it does not explain

why intolerance is directed toward the most stigmatized ethnic groups (e.g.,

Dambrun et al., 2006). Perhaps it is more ‘palatable’ for members of a privileged

group to derogate an out-group that is the least protected in our society

(Hagendoorn, 1995; Snellman & Ekehammar, 2005). However, since our research

did not measure participants’ bias toward graduates from the competing university,

it is premature to dismiss the possibility that relative privilege is associated with

prejudice toward multiple target out-groups. Finally, our findings reveal that the

choice of the measure of out-group derogation counts (see footnote 8). The

interaction between the legitimacy and stability of the intergroup relationship and

perceived intergroup improvement produces a predominantly hostile and overt form

of prejudice. This finding adds to recent studies that show that traditional prejudice

remains a relevant feature of intergroup relations, even in modern times (Beaton

et al., 2011).

All in all, the present studies serve to examine the structural conditions that affect

the relationship between GRG and traditional prejudice. This research, however,

does contain some limits that warrant mention. The in-group (i.e., graduates from

participants’ alma mater) reflects participants’ anticipated, rather than immediate,

in-group. However, this indicates that even sharing a common fate with graduates

from their alma mater (e.g., employment outcomes) will produce results similar to

those obtained in research that has considered the respondents’ immediate in-group

(Guimond & Dambrun, 2002). Furthermore, the measures of GRG and prejudice

were assessed simultaneously; hence, no inference can be made as to the direction

of their relationship.

Although this research has identified structural factors that modulate the

relationship between GRG and traditional prejudice, it also illuminates some

elements that can put an end to this link, namely illegitimate and stable intergroup

inequalities. However, providing information concerning both the illegitimacy and

the stability of the intergroup inequity contains some level of risk. Emphasizing

illegitimate sources of an advantaged status may trigger a personal sense of guilt by

members of the privileged group which may then foment negative intergroup

relations, unless opportunities for reparations are provided (Amodio, Devine, &

Harmon-Jones, 2007). In contrast, research has uncovered benefits accrued from

collective guilt on intergroup perceptions (Pedersen, Beven, Walker, & Griffiths,

2004). It is also important to avoid inducing shame in participants for their

privileged status, as that can lead to the inhibition of behaviors aimed at redressing

the intergroup inequality (Leach et al., 2006). Furthermore, securing intergroup

discrepancies, such as maintaining an unfair status quo, is not a viable option. This

raises the question: How to introduce change to the structure of the intergroup

relationship between an advantaged and disadvantaged group without exacerbating

prejudice? Perhaps there is promise in promoting the status of the disadvantaged

Soc Just Res (2015) 28:143–167 161

123

out-group in a way that does not convey a zero sum relationship with the more

prosperous out-group. More work is needed to examine how shifts to the security of

the intergroup relation can produce favorable outcomes to the intergroup relation.

Acknowledgments This research was supported by a doctoral scholarship from the Social Sciences and

Humanities Research Council of Canada conferred to the first author (767-2010-1721) and a grant from

the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada conferred to the second author (950-

203481). The authors thank Tanya Monger for her assistance with data collection.

Appendix

Study 1: Graph

162 Soc Just Res (2015) 28:143–167

123

Study 2: Out-Group Progress Condition

Soc Just Res (2015) 28:143–167 163

123

Study 2: Stable Condition

164 Soc Just Res (2015) 28:143–167

123

Study 2: In-Group Decline Condition

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Amodio, D. M., Devine, P. G., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2007). A dynamic model of guilt: Implications for

motivation and self-regulation in the context of prejudice. Psychological Science, 18, 524–530.

Augoustinos, M., Ahrens, C., & Innes, J. M. (1994). Stereotypes and prejudice: The Australian

experience. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 125–141.

Beaton, A. M., & Deveau, M. (2005). Helping the less fortunate: A predictive model of collective action.

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 1609–1629.

Beaton, A. M., Dovidio, J. F., & LeBlanc, J. (2011). Traditional prejudice and justice judgments: Does

bias suppression moderate the relationship? Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 579–583.

Bettencourt, B. A., Dorr, N., Charlton, K., & Hume, D. L. (2001). Status differences and in-group bias: A

meta-analytic examination of the effects of status stability, status legitimacy, and group

permeability. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 520–542.

Branscombe, N. R., Schmitt, M. T., & Schiffhauer, K. (2007). Racial attitudes in response to thoughts of

White privilege. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 203–215.

Soc Just Res (2015) 28:143–167 165

123

Brown, R. J. (2010). Prejudice: Its social psychology (2nd ed.). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Crosby, F. (1976). A model of egoistical relative deprivation. Psychological Review, 83, 85–113.

Cunningham, E., & Platow, M. J. (2007). On helping lower status out-groups: The nature of the help and

the stability of the intergroup status hierarchy. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 258–264.

Dambrun, M., Guimond, S., & Taylor, D. M. (2006). The counter-intuitive effect of relative gratification

on intergroup attitudes: Ecological validity, moderators and mediators. In S. Guimond (Ed.), Social

comparison and social psychology: Understanding cognition, intergroup relations, and culture (pp.

206–227). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Dambrun, M., & Taylor, D. M. (2013). The counterintuitive association between life satisfaction and

racism. SageOpen,. doi:10.1177/2158244013505756.

Davies, J. C. (1962). Toward a theory of revolution. American Sociological Review, 27, 5–19.

de la Sablonniere, R., Taylor, D. M., Perozzo, C., & Sadykova, N. (2008). Reconceptualizing relative

deprivation in the context of dramatic social change: The challenge confronting the people of

Kyrgyzstan. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 325–345.

Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2004). Aversive racism. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental

social psychology (Vol. 36, pp. 1–52). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.

Dube, L., & Guimond, S. (1986). Relative deprivation and social protest: The personal-group issue. In J.

M. Olson, C. P. Herman, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Relative deprivation and social comparison: The

Ontario symposium (Vol. 4, pp. 158–179). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Eibach, R. P., & Keegan, T. (2006). Free at last? Social dominance, loss aversion, and White and Black

Americans’ differing assessments of racial progress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

90, 453–467.

Grofman, B. N., & Muller, E. N. (1973). The strange case of relative gratification and potential for

political violence: The V-curve hypothesis. American Political Science Review, 67, 514–539.

Guimond, S., & Dambrun, M. (2002). When prosperity breeds intergroup hostility: The effects of relative

deprivation and relative gratification on prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28,

900–912.

Hagendoorn, L. (1995). Intergroup biases in multiple group systems: The perception of ethnic hierarchies.

European Review of Social Psychology, 6, 199–228.

Harth, N. S., Kessler, T., & Leach, C. W. (2008). Advantaged group’s emotional reactions to intergroup

inequality: The dynamics of pride, guilt, and sympathy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,

34, 115–129.

Iyer, A., Leach, C., & Crosby, F. J. (2003). White guilt and racial compensation: The benefits and limits

of self-focus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 117–129.

Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated

evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25,

881–919.

Leach, C. (2002). Democracy’s dilemma: Explaining racial inequality in egalitarian societies.

Sociological Forum, 17, 681–696.

Leach, C. W., Iyer, A., & Pedersen, A. (2006). Anger and guilt about ingroup advantage: Explaining the

willingness for political action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1232–1245.

Leach, C. W., Snider, N., & Iyer, A. (2002). ‘Poisoning the conscience of the fortunate’: The experience

of relative advantage and support for social equality. In I. Walker & H. Smith (Eds.), Relative

deprivation: Specification, development and integration (pp. 136–163). New York, NY: Cambridge

University Press.

Maritime Provinces Higher Education Commission. (2014). Annual report: Year in review 2013–2014.

http://www.mphec.ca/media/83372/2013-2014_AR_EN_FINAL.pdf.

McConahay, J. B. (1986). Modern racism, ambivalence, and the Modern Racism Scale. In J. F. Dovidio &

S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 91–125). San Diego, CA:

Academic Press.

McIntosh, P. (1989). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack. Working paper #189. Wellesley,

MA: Wellesley College Center for Research on Women.

McIntosh, P. (2012). Reflections and future directions for privilege studies. Journal of Social Issues, 68,

194–206.

Miron, A. M., Branscombe, N. R., & Schmitt, M. T. (2006). Collective guilt as distress over illegitimate

intergroup inequality. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9, 163–180.

166 Soc Just Res (2015) 28:143–167

123

Neuwenhuis, B. (2009). Relative deprivation and relative gratification as predictors of intergroup

discrimination: Can prejudice be reduced by equality? Masters thesis. http://ufh.netd.ac.za/

bitstream/10353/147/1/Masters%20Thesis%20Brigitte.pdf.

Pedersen, A., Beven, J., Walker, I., & Griffiths, B. (2004). Attitudes toward Indigenous Australians: The

role of empathy and guilt. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 14, 233–249.

Pettigrew, T. F., Christ, O., Wagner, U., Meertens, R. W., van Dick, R., & Zick, A. (2008). Relative

deprivation and intergroup prejudice. Journal of Social Issues, 64, 385–401.

Postmes, T., & Smith, L. G. E. (2009). Why do the privileged resort to oppression? A look at some

intragroup factors. Journal of Social Issues, 65, 769–790.

Powell, A. A., Branscombe, N. R., & Schmitt, M. T. (2005). Inequality as ingroup privilege or outgroup

disadvantage: The impact of group focus on collective guilt and interracial attitudes. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 508–521.

Rogers, R. W., & Prentice-Dunn, S. (1981). Deindividuation and anger-mediated interracial aggression:

Unmasking regressive racism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 63–71.

Runciman, W. G. (1966). Relative deprivation and social justice: A study of attitudes to social inequality

in twentieth-century England. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Scheepers, D. (2009). Turning social identity threat into challenge: Status stability and cardiovascular

reactivity during inter-group competition. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 228–233.

Schmitt, M. T., Branscombe, N. R., & Kappen, D. M. (2003). Attitudes toward group-based inequality:

Social dominance or social identity? British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 161–186.

Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and

oppression. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (2004). Social dominance theory: A new synthesis. In J. T. Jost & J. Sidanius

(Eds.), Political psychology: Key readings (pp. 315–332). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Sijtsma, K. (2009). On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s alpha.

Psychometrika, 74, 107–120.

Smith, H. J., Pettigrew, T. F., Pippin, G. M., & Bialosiewicz, S. (2012). Relative deprivation: A

theoretical and analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16, 203–232.

Snellman, A., & Ekehammar, B. (2005). Ethnic hierarchies, ethnic prejudice and social dominance

orientation. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 15, 83–94.

Tajfel, H. (1978). The psychological structure of intergroup relations. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation

between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 27–100).

London: Academic Press.

Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tougas, F., & Veilleux, F. (1990). The response of men to affirmative action strategies for women: The

study of a predictive model. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 22, 424–432.

Vallerand, R. J. (1989). Vers une methodologie de validation trans-culturelle de questionnaires

psychologiques: Implications pour la recherche en langue francaise. Canadian Psychology/

Psychologie Canadienne, 30, 662–680.

Walker, I. (1994). Attitudes to minorities: Survey evidence of Western Australians’ attitudes to

Aborigines, Asians, and Women. Australian Journal of Psychology, 46, 137–143.

Walker, I., & Smith, H. J. (2002). Fifty years of relative deprivation research. In I. Walker & H. J. Smith

(Eds.), Relative deprivation: Specification, development, and integration (pp. 1–9). New York, NY:

Cambridge University Press.

Walker, I., Wong, N. K., & Kretzschmar, K. (2002). Relative deprivation and attribution: From grievance

to action. In I. Walker & H. J. Smith (Eds.), Relative deprivation: Specification, development, and

integration (pp. 288–312). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Whol, M. J. A., Branscombe, N. R., & Klar, Y. (2006). Collective guilt: Emotional reactions when one’s

group has done wrong or been wronged. European Review of Social Psychology, 17, 1–37.

Soc Just Res (2015) 28:143–167 167

123