Copyright 2001 by the Educational Publishing Foundation I089-2699/01S5.00 DOI: 10.1037//1089-2699.5.2.81
Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 2001, Vol. 5, No. 2, 81-91
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
In-Group Members' Perceptions of a Social Mobility Attempt: Effects of Boundary Permeability and Outcome Kelly Charlton
B. Ann Bettencourt
University of North Carolina at Pembroke
University of Missouri—Columbia
This study examined in-group members' impressions of a fellow member who attempted to join a higher power group, along with the interactive effects of the permeability of group boundaries and relative success of this social mobility attempt on impressions. Because groups with less permeable boundaries are typically more cohesive, a group member's relative success in achieving mobility should have meaning for these groups, as opposed to those with more permeable boundaries. Thus, it was predicted that the effect of success versus failure on in-group members' evaluations would be stronger when group boundaries were less permeable. The results showed that a member successful at social mobility was evaluated more positively than one who was unsuccessful, and this difference was larger when boundaries were less permeable.
describe an individual's attempt to join a group with greater positive distinctiveness. Theoretically, individuals are motivated to improve their social standing (e.g., joining a high status group or high power group) because one's social identity influences the self-concept (Tajfel & Turner, 1986; van Knippenberg & Ellemers, 1993). The social mobility strategy differs from other strategies for enhancing social identity in that it requires independent rather than collective action (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Moreover, social mobility is often the first strategy to be used as a means of enhancing social identity (see Taylor & McKirnan, 1984; Taylor, Moghaddam, Gamble, & Zellerer, 1987; van Knippenberg, 1978, 1984). Research focusing on the social mobility strategy has shown a variety of ways that individuals may disassociate from an in-group (e.g., Jackson, Sullivan, Harnish, & Hodge, 1996) and identify with a higher status out-group (Ellemers, van Knippenberg, & Wilke, 1990).
Imagine that you work in the purchasing department of a large corporation. You hope to be promoted to a management position in the near future, and, if you are promoted, you will supervise the people in your current work group. As such, you are concerned that your coworkers' perceptions of you may change with this promotion. Furthermore, you worry that, in the event you are denied the promotion, they may develop negative feelings toward you. Essentially, you are aware that an attempt to improve your standing may influence others' attitudes toward you. This example highlights some of the ways in which in-group members may respond to an individual group member who attempts to join a better or more powerful group. Tajfel and Turner (1986) used the term social mobility to
Kelly Charlton, Department of Psychology and Counseling, University of North Carolina at Pembroke; B. Ann Bettencourt, Department of Psychology, University of Missouri—Columbia. This article is based on a doctoral dissertation completed by Kelly Charlton. We wish to thank Nicole Bennet, Toni Paulsen, Joe Salter, Mark Dyhouse, and Jennifer Perry for their help with data collection. We are also grateful to Harris Cooper, Cyndi Kernahan, and Janie Eubanks for their thoughtful suggestions and comments on earlier versions. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kelly Charlton, Department of Psychology and Counseling, One University Drive, P.O. Box 1510, University of North Carolina, Pembroke, North Carolina 28372. Electronic mail may be sent to
[email protected].
Researchers (e.g., Wright, Taylor, & Moghaddam, 1990) have examined the conditions that influence the likelihood of using social mobility, as well as the ways in which individuals feel about their own chances of upward mobility. However, little if any research has investigated in-group members' perceptions of another group member who attempts upward social mobility. In the present research, we were interested in understanding the intragroup dynamics of social mobility. We assume that an81
82
CHARLTON AND BETTENCOURT
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
ticipation of in-group members' attitudes may influence whether an individual is likely to use the social mobility strategy. As Festinger (1954) explained, People . . . tend to move into groups . . . and they tend to move out of groups. . . . Such movement in and out of groups is, of course, not a completely fluid affair. The attractiveness of fan in-group] may be strong enough for other reasons so that a person cannot move out of it. Or there may be restraints for one or another reason, against leaving. In both of these circumstances, mobility from one group to another is hindered, (p. 136)
In other words, individuals may anticipate that the mobility strategy will result in consequences in addition to identity enhancement. For example, one consequence may be that fellow ingroup members develop negative attitudes about an individual who attempts social mobility. Alternatively, in-group members may admire a member who attempts the social mobility strategy. The purpose of the present investigation was to study in-group members' perceptions of a fellow member who attempted to move into a group with greater power. We predicted that attitudes toward the individual attempting social mobility would be influenced by whether the person was successful or unsuccessful in his or her attempt and by whether the boundaries of the group were perceived to be either more permeable or less permeable. In what follows, we review the literature related to the social mobility strategy and present a study designed to examine the ways in which success of the mobility attempt and permeability of group boundaries influence in-group members' perceptions of a fellow member who attempts individual social mobility. Relative Success and Social Mobility Social contextual variables are likely to influence in-group members' perceptions of an individual who uses the social mobility strategy (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). We hypothesized that success versus failure in the mobility attempt would be one such moderating variable. Little evidence bears directly on the effect of relative success on in-group members' perceptions. However, in one study, Wright and his colleagues (1990) measured participants' preference for individual or collective action after they failed in their attempt to move from a
disadvantaged group to a more prestigious group. The results showed that, after this failure, participants preferred individual strategies to collective ones. Whereas Wright and colleagues' research highlights the importance of relative success for understanding the social mobility strategy, it was not designed to measure fellow in-group members' perceptions of a group member who fails or succeeds at the social mobility strategy. In the current work, we were interested in examining the effect of relative success on fellow in-group members' perceptions of an individual attempting upward mobility. We speculated that, because success should be positive, in-group members would evaluate a fellow member more favorably if that individual was successful in achieving membership in a high power group than if that individual was unsuccessful. Little, if any, evidence bears directly on the prediction that people's relative success at upward mobility influences evaluations of them. However, several lines of research (e.g., Branscombe, Wann, Noel, & Coleman, 1993; Hogg & Hardie, 1991; Marques & Yzerbyt, 1988; Marques, Yzerbyt, & Leyens, 1988) show that group members with positive characteristics are favorably evaluated by their fellow ingroup members. Other research evidence suggests that the actions of a particular in-group member potentially reflect on the group as a whole. That in-group members' behavior or information reflects on the members of the larger in-group is at the heart of the research of Marques and his colleagues (Marques & Yzerbyt, 1988; Marques et al., 1988). These authors theorize that members' evaluations of a positive member of the in-group are extremely favorable because the member's actions are generalized to the social group as a whole; a similarly extreme but opposite evaluation is associated with a negative in-group member. Although we predicted that in-group members would evaluate successful individuals more positively than unsuccessful ones, a possible alternative is that in-group members might resent a successful attempt to join another group. This is plausible because leaving may be seen as rejecting of or disloyal to the current group. Consistent with this rationale, in one study, Branscombe and colleagues (1993) showed that, relative to those with low in-group identification, highly identified group members
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
GAINING ACCESS INTO A HIGH POWER GROUP
evaluated a disloyal in-group member extremely negatively. However, in that study the disloyal group member actively criticized the in-group and acknowledged the strengths of the out-group, and social mobility, per se, was not part of the study. By contrast, in our study the in-group member attempted to join another group but did not actively devalue her or his current in-group. Therefore, we retained our prediction that an in-group member who succeeded in a social mobility attempt would be evaluated positively.
83
ber's relative success in the mobility attempt is likely to have more meaning for groups with less permeable boundaries than for groups with more permeable boundaries. We know of no study that has directly examined the effect of relative success and group boundary permeability on the evaluations of those individuals attempting the social mobility strategy. Therefore, in the current work, we examined the interaction of group boundary permeability and mobility success on in-group members' evaluations of a fellow in-group member who attempted to join a high power group.
Relative Permeability and Social Mobility Study 1 Prior research (e.g., Ellemers, Doosje, van Knippenberg, & Wilke, 1992; Ellemers et al., 1990; Ellemers, Wilke, & van Knippenberg, 1993) suggests that the permeability of boundaries between groups is likely to play a central role in influencing in-group members' attitudes toward those individuals who pursue membership in positively distinctive groups. Members of groups with less permeable boundaries should anticipate greater difficulty in changing their group membership. For example, people would naturally have difficulty changing their gender or racial group memberships; such groups are examples of those with impermeable boundaries. By contrast, members of groups with more permeable boundaries can easily change their group memberships. Examples of these groups are interest clubs (e.g., ecology club or book club) and professions. Important for the current work, studies show that groups with less permeable boundaries have more favorable attitudes toward their ingroup and are more highly identified with the in-group (e.g., Ellemers et al., 1993). As measured by Ellemers and her colleagues (1992, 1993), identification includes liking of fellow group members (i.e., cohesion) and the extent to which one incorporates one's group membership into one's self-concept (i.e., identification). Moreover, groups with less permeable boundaries are more cohesive than those with more permeable boundaries (e.g., Ellemers et al., 1992, 1993; Ellemers, van Knippenberg, DeVries, & Wilke, 1988). On the basis of these findings, we reasoned that whether an individual succeeds in a social mobility attempt may have greater implications for groups with less permeable boundaries. That is, a group mem-
The present study was designed to provide an initial investigation of the evaluative consequences of using the social mobility strategy. In doing so, we focused on how in-group members evaluate those who attempt to leave their current group to join another group. We manipulated whether the person seeking entry into the high power group was successful or unsuccessful. We also manipulated the permeability of the boundary between the high and low power groups. Empirically, group boundary permeability has been operationalized such that group composition is expected to remain the same (i.e., less permeable) or change after some task (i.e., permeable; e.g., Ellemers et al., 1992). Similarly, in the present study, in one condition participants were told that it was likely (permeable) that individual members might change group membership during the experiment, and in a second condition participants were told that it was unlikely (less permeable) that individual members would change group membership. Our primary dependent measure assessed group members' evaluations of the individual who sought membership in the high power group. We also attempted to assess the effects of boundary permeability on a measure of group members' feelings of cohesion. We hypothesized that, when a group member succeeded in an attempt to move from a low power group to a higher power group, this individual would be evaluated more positively by fellow group members than would an individual who failed in such an attempt. More important, we hypothesized that fellow group members' evaluations of an individual who was successful or unsuccessful in the social mobility strategy
CHARLTON AND BETTENCOURT
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
84
would be moderated by the permeability of the group boundaries. In other words, we predicted that the magnitude of the difference between the evaluation of the successful and unsuccessful individual member would be greater when the group boundaries were less permeable than when they were more permeable. In line with previous findings (Ellemers et al., 1988, 1992, 1993), we predicted that participants in less permeable groups would feel more in-group cohesion than those in permeable groups.
Method Participants One hundred seventy-two undergraduates (100 women and 72 men) at the University of Missouri—Columbia participated in partial fulfillment of their introductory psychology course requirements.
Design All participants were assigned to a low power group. Two independent variables were manipulated: the success of a low power in-group member attempting upward mobility (success vs. failure) and the perceived permeability of the boundary between the high and low power groups (permeable vs. less permeable). These variables combined to form a 2 (attempt outcome) X 2 (boundary permeability) betweensubjects factorial design. Analyses focused on group members' perceptions of the individual who attempted to move (e.g., liking and desire for future working relations) and in-group cohesion, and manipulation check questions were included. Procedure Assignment to groups. The low power group included 5 people of the same sex. Each session included 4 participants and 1 confederate (female confederates participated in the female sessions, and male confederates participated in the male sessions). As a means of creating the impression that there was also a high power group in each session, the participants saw that 5 other college students of the same sex were in a nearby room. One of these students was also a confederate. The confeder-
ate in the high power group continued to play a role in the study, but the other 4 students were simply asked to fill out a questionnaire unrelated to the current study. Once participants had filled out a consent form, they were told that the study was being conducted in collaboration with the business school to examine decision-making strategies of groups. As such, the two groups would work on their own task and then be brought together on a second task, with the ultimate goal of designing an ideal city. Participants were told the process of designing the city would involve their group suggesting initial city features while the other group worked on a budget. Then they were told that there would be a negotiation between representatives from the two groups, and, finally, the two groups would work together on a final task. Participants were told that the group's representative would be randomly selected. In fact, the confederate was always chosen as the group's representative. To increase participants' motivation to actively take part in the task, they were told that at the end of the experiment all of the cities created by the team of two groups would be judged and the best team city would be awarded $100. In actuality, one team was randomly selected and awarded the monetary prize. The remainder of the experiment had three phases: (a) the task phase, (b) the negotiation phase, and (c) completion of dependent measures. Task phase. Participants were told that their group was randomly assigned to be the Innovations Committee and that the other group was assigned to be the Fiscal Committee. These two titles had been selected for use in the study because a pretest showed that the Fiscal Committee was perceived as having more power (M = 4.91, SD = 0.25) than the Innovations Committee (M = 4.05, SD = 0.23), f(21) = 2.56, p < .05. Scores ranged from 1 (low power) to 7 (high power). To further bolster the relative power between the Innovations and Fiscal Committees, the participants were told that the Fiscal Committee would be deciding on how the prize money would be distributed. Specifically, they were told: After the negotiation, the Fiscal Committee will finalize the budget for the city. In addition, the Fiscal Committee will be asked to make recommendations about what percentage of the prize money each group
GAINING ACCESS INTO A HIGH POWER GROUP
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
should get, if your team should win. They will be asked to make this decision based on the contributions that each committee makes toward the design of your team city. In other words, they may either allocate each group 50% of the prize money or more or less depending on each group's contribution.
Group boundary permeability was manipulated through a procedure similar to that used by Ellemers et al. (1988). Participants were led to believe either that some of the participants might move from one group to another or that the composition of the groups would not change. Specifically, participants in the permeable condition were told: Studies show that groups who share a common goal often produce better team products if some members are able to change from one group to the other. These studies also show that individual members want to change into the other group. Therefore, in this study, some of you may have the opportunity to change groups before working on the final team project.
Participants in the less permeable condition were told: Studies show that groups who share a common goal often produce better team products if all of the members stay in their original group. These studies also show that individual members want to change into the other group. But, in this study it is unlikely that group members will change groups before working on the final team project.
The participants were then provided with some background information and a further explanation of how to complete their group's task. They were told that they should think about an ideal city and come up with more than five basic features, along with the rationale for each, for that city. Examples of city features (e.g., apartment complexes, banks, and college-university) were given to groups to help them get started and provide some consistency in idea generation across sessions. Negotiation phase. In preparation for the negotiation, the confederates were extensively trained so that the negotiation would be standardized between sessions. However, within each session, the negotiators incorporated the specific city features chosen by the Innovations Committee itself. On completion of the task phase, the negotiators (i.e., the confederates) were asked to step into a common room that was within hearing, but out of sight, of the participants. First, the in-group negotiator presented two ideas that had been generated by the
85
low power group (i.e., the Innovations Committee). Then the in-group negotiator ostensibly entered into more casual conversation with the other negotiator and, in doing so, appeared to attempt to join the high power group (i.e., the Fiscal Committee). Specifically, the confederate from the low power group said, "I'm a business major and I just did a report on this exact thing—you know, budgetary issues... and I got an A. As a matter of fact, what would you think if I switched into your group?" Once the in-group negotiator asked to join the Fiscal Committee group, the manipulation of success or failure occurred. The negotiator from the high power group responded with either a success response ("Well, I'll have to check with the rest of my group, but I think it'll be okay if you switch into our group") or a failure response ("Well, I could talk to the rest of my group, but I don't think we want anyone else in our group"). After this interaction, the negotiators completed a brief discussion of the final ideas from the Innovations Committee. The experimenter then directed the negotiators (confederates) back to their respective rooms. Completion of response measures. Immediately after the negotiator had returned to the Innovations Committee, the participants were told that they would need to answer a few questions before the final, team phase, and response measures were distributed to all participants, including the confederate. To ensure confidentiality, only the two-digit number on their name tag identified participants' response packet. Participants were asked to rate each group member separately, and the critical dependent measure was the rating of the confederate. These ratings were a series of traits (e.g., "How friendly was each of the members of your group?") and an item asking the degree to which participants would like to work with each of the in-group members; 7-point Likert-type scales followed each question (1 = somewhat, 4 = moderately, 7 = extremely). Group cohesion was assessed with a fouritem measure adapted from that described by Turner, Hogg, Turner, and Smith (1984). Specifically, participants indicated their feelings for their in-group using a 7-point scale (1 = not very favorable, 7 = very favorable) for the
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
86
CHARLTON AND BETTENCOURT
following items: "How favorable are your feelings about the members of the Innovations Committee?" "How much do you like the members of the Innovations Committee?" "How much would you want to carry on working with the members of the Innovations Committee on other tasks?" and "How favorable are your feelings about the members in the Fiscal Committee?" (reverse coded). Finally, participants were given the manipulation check. Specifically, they were asked whether they believed it was likely or unlikely that a group member could change from one group to the other, and they were asked to identify the group that was to make the decision as to how the prize money would be divided. Once the ratings were made, the participants did not continue on with the task. Instead, the experimenter informed the participants that there was no final team phase. Because of the high degree of deception in this study, participants were verbally debriefed. During the debriefing, participants were probed for suspicion and confirmation that they had heard and understood the negotiator's attempt to leave their group. After debriefing, participants were thanked for taking part and dismissed.
Results and Discussion The group was treated as the unit of analysis. Group scores were calculated by averaging the ratings for each item across the 4 group members. The ratings were averaged into a single index (a = .89). The four cohesion ratings were also averaged into a single index (a = .80). Inspection of the histograms and box plots (SAS Institute, 1985) for each measure revealed that the distributions of the trait ratings and cohesion scores were approximately normal. Participants' responses on the two manipulation checks were analyzed. As expected, the majority of participants (68%) in the more permeable condition correctly indicated that it was likely that individuals could change groups during the experiment, ^ ( 1 , N = 85) = 11.31, p < .01.' However, participants in the less permeable condition were equally likely to respond that individuals could change groups (55%), ^ ( 1 , N = 82) = 0.20, p > .05. The responses of these latter participants may have been influenced by the fact that a member of their group actually attempted to leave the group. In addi-
tion, the majority of participants (66%) correctly identified that the high power out-group had the final decision on the division of the prize money, ^ ( l , A f = 161)= 16.20, p .20. Pairwise comparisons showed that, consistent with the hypothesis, individuals in less permeable groups evaluated the target more favorably when the attempt succeeded than when the attempt failed, F(l, 39) = 12.12, p < .01, but individuals in permeable groups evaluated the successful and unsuccessful targets similarly, F(l, 39) = 0.30, p > .20. Ratings of the other in-group members were taken merely to make it seem to the participants that we were interested in their views about all of the members in their group. In fact, the primary interest was in their ratings of the confederate who ostensibly attempted to move to the high power group. There is no reason to believe that the mover's attempt to leave the ' Sample size differed for each chi-square analysis because some participants failed to respond to the manipulation check questions.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
GAINING ACCESS INTO A HIGH POWER GROUP
Impermeable
Permeable
Group boundaries Figure 1. Mean ratings as a function of attempt outcome and permeability. (In the success and failure conditions, respectively, the standard deviations for the less permeable groups were 0.43 and 0.64, and those for the more permeable groups were 0.58 and 0.63.)
group should influence the ratings of the other members in the group. Indeed, a 2 (attempt outcome) X 2 (boundary permeability) between-subjects ANOVA revealed no significant main effects of attempt outcome, F(l, 39) = 0.66, p > .20, or boundary permeability, F(l, 39) = 0.00, p > .20, and no Attempt Outcome X Boundary Permeability interaction, F(l,39) = 1.25, p > .20. The individual group member who succeeded in the social mobility attempt was evaluated more positively than the one who failed, and this was especially the case when group boundaries were less permeable. That the evaluations of an in-group member attempting social mobility from a less permeable group are influenced by relative success may reflect the fact that the mobility attempt has meaning for the positive distinctiveness of that group. By comparison, a group member attempting to leave a more permeable group may reflect little on the positivity of that in-group.
Cohesion Contrary to predictions, the results failed to reveal that groups with less permeable boundaries reported greater feelings of cohesion than did groups with permeable boundaries, F(l, 39) = 0.08, p > .20. Indeed, the mean cohesion level reported by the members in the less per-
87
meable groups was quite similar (M = 4.96, SD = 0.55) to that reported by members in permeable groups (M = 4.94, SD = 0.45). That the permeability of group boundaries failed to influence in-group cohesion was unanticipated because prior studies, involving very similar manipulations (e.g., Ellemers et al., 1988, 1992, 1993), indicated that groups with less permeable boundaries are more cohesive than are those with more permeable boundaries. Perhaps feelings of cohesion were diminished because this measure was taken after the target attempted social mobility. In retrospect, it would have been better to measure in-group cohesion after the permeability manipulation but before the social mobility attempt. Study 2 We conducted a follow-up study to resolve the possible problem of placement of the cohesion measurement. The initial events in Study 2 were the same as in Study 1 (e.g., instructions); however, the cohesion measure was administered immediately after the initial group task, and then the session was ended. As in Study 1, it was predicted that greater cohesion would be expressed by individuals in the less permeable groups than by individuals in the permeable groups.
Method Participants Sixty-six undergraduates (45 women and 21 men) at the University of Missouri—Columbia participated in partial fulfillment of their introductory psychology course requirements.
Procedure The procedure for Study 2 was essentially the same as in Study 1. However, there were several minor changes. First, because the session ended before the negotiation phase, a negotiator was not chosen. However, to make the situations similar, participants were told that a negotiator would be chosen after the initial group task. Second, immediately after the initial group task (choosing the initial items for the city), participants completed the four-item cohesion measure (identical to the one described in Study 1).
88
CHARLTON AND BETTENCOURT
Finally, both groups in the session were separately led to believe that their group was the Innovations Committee and the other group the Fiscal Committee, when, in fact, both groups were given the Innovations Committee (low power) instructions. This arrangement allowed two groups to take part simultaneously.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Results and Discussion As described in Study 1, the group was treated as the unit of analysis. The cohesion score was calculated by averaging the responses to the four cohesion items (a = .72), and the distribution of this index was approximately normal. As predicted, participants' feelings of cohesion were affected by boundary permeability, F(\, 14) = 5.30, p < .05. Groups in the less permeable condition felt more cohesive (M = 5.55, SD = 0.86) than did those in the permeable condition (M = 5.14, SD = 0.60). These results suggest that the members of less permeable groups in Study 1 may have felt more in-group cohesion immediately after the in-group cooperative phase. General Discussion In-group members' perceptions of a fellow group member were influenced by whether that member was successful in gaining membership into a positively distinct group, especially when group boundaries were less permeable. Specifically, the results showed that members of ingroups with less permeable boundaries gave more favorable ratings to a fellow member who succeeded in an attempt to join a high power group than one who did not succeed. In contrast, members of groups with more permeable boundaries tended to evaluate in-group targets similarly, regardless of their relative success. Although we reasoned that, relative to members of groups with more permeable boundaries, those in groups with less permeable boundaries would feel greater cohesion with their fellow members, the results of our Study 1 revealed no supportive evidence. In Study 1, group cohesion was measured after the mobility attempt, but in Study 2 we measured cohesion before the mobility attempt. The results of Study 2 revealed that members of less permeable groups did indeed feel more cohesion than did members of
permeable groups. Therefore, this finding may suggest that, in Study 1, less permeable groups felt greater cohesion than more permeable groups before the mobility attempt. These results underscore the possibility that cohesion among less permeable groups may have played a role in the evaluations of the in-group member who was successful at social mobility relative to the one who was unsuccessful. These results support prior research revealing that boundary permeability, relative success, and cohesion are important variables for understanding the use of the mobility strategy for achieving membership in a positively distinctive group (e.g., Ellemers et al., 1988, 1992, 1993). For example, Ellemers and her colleagues have shown that individuals desire to move into better groups and identify with these groups when movement into them is possible (e.g., Ellemers et al., 1990). Whereas this research shows that individual members' preferences for social mobility are influenced by the permeability of the group boundaries, there may be specific instances in which members of less permeable groups do opt for the individual mobility strategy. For those who consider using the social mobility strategy as a means to improve their social identity, the consequences of their fellow in-group members' perceptions may play some role in the decision to use the strategy. Consistent with this, the present study is among the first to provide evidence suggesting that there may be intragroup consequences for the individual attempting upward mobility. Although, in the present study, we focused on upward mobility into a higher power group, we suspect the results may be very similar when the desired group membership is high status. The finding that relative success of the mobility strategy influenced the evaluations given by members of less permeable groups is consistent with the black sheep hypothesis (Marques & Yzerbyt, 1988; Marques et al., 1988). Previous studies testing this perspective have revealed that group members show extreme regard for positively depicted in-group members but disparage members who are negatively depicted, especially when they violate specific in-group norms. Marques and his colleagues have theorized that such polarization in evaluations of in-group members occurs because the actions of the individual reflect on the positive distinctiveness of the group.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
GAINING ACCESS INTO A HIGH POWER GROUP
An intriguing explanation for this polarization of evaluation may be found, in part, in the self-evaluation maintenance model (Tesser, 1988) and, more specifically, in the concept of basking in reflected glory (Cialdini et al., 1976; Cialdini & Richardson, 1980). The self-evaluation maintenance model has two central assumptions: People behave in ways that will maintain or increase self-evaluation, and people's relationships with others have substantial implications for the self-concept. Consequently, the theory argues that when close others perform well on a task, we will bask in their glory (Cialdini et al., 1976; Tesser, 1988) to gain a more positive self-evaluation. By extension, the behavior of a fellow group member is more likely to reflect on the self in groups that are more psychologically close (e.g., cohesive). Thus, when that group member succeeds in gaining access to a higher power group, the other members may bask in her or his glory. By implication, it is tenable that, among cohesive groups, an individual member's failure to achieve upward mobility may reflect negatively on the group as a whole (Branscombe et al., 1993; Marques & Yzerbyt, 1988; Marques et al., 1988). Branscombe et al. (1993) showed that group members who distance themselves from their in-groups are evaluated more negatively. However, as noted previously, these group members were disloyal to and rejecting of the current in-group in favor of a competitive out-group. By contrast, in the current study, the in-group member who attempted social mobility did not make any disparaging comments about the ingroup but instead merely requested entry into the higher power group. The comparison of these two sets of findings reveals that the way in which an individual leaves his or her in-group may have important implications for the evaluations of that individual. The current research paradigm was designed to be similar to what one might find in an organizational setting where work groups must each contribute their own expertise to a final product. Thus, although one group clearly had more power than the other did, the groups were, in essence, in cooperation. We might expect rejection of an ingroup member who attempted to join a higher power adversarial group, especially if the move were detrimental to the low power group.
In the current study, an in-group member attempted the social mobility strategy by using rational arguments. It could be said that rational strategies have positive appeal. Thus, this particular strategy may have had specific effects on the evaluations. For example, if the mover chose instead to be assertive and demanded entry into the high power group, evaluations may have been more uniformly negative, regardless of the outcome of the attempt or the permeability of the group boundaries. Because it is known that people use a variety of strategies for upward influence (e.g., Ansari & Kapoor, 1987; Chacko, 1990; Kipnis & Schmidt, 1988), future research should examine the ways in which different strategies influence evaluations of in-group members. Moreover, the findings of the current study should be corroborated with research involving real groups. In real-group settings, other variables are likely to influence the intragroup processes highlighted in the current study. The findings of the current study are limited in several ways. First, the study did not include a direct measure of group power. Our findings did confirm that participants in the Innovations Committee recognized that the Fiscal Committee had control over desired resources, thus implying that the participants recognized that they were in the low power group. However, it would have been better to directly assess participants' perceptions of relative power between the two groups. Second, we predicted that cohesion would mediate the effect of group boundary permeability on evaluations of an in-group member who failed or succeeded at social mobility. In Study 2 we found that, consistent with other research, groups with less permeable boundaries expressed greater feelings of in-group cohesion. Nevertheless, without the direct mediational evidence from Study 1, it is possible that cohesion may not play the central role predicted by our model. In the absence of this evidence, we cannot confirm that other variables, such as the relative difficulty associated with attempting to leave a group with less permeability, played no role in in-group members' evaluations. Because success at social mobility may seem more difficult when the group boundaries are less permeable, it may be that the positive evaluations of the successful mover are the result of overcoming tough odds.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
90
CHARLTON AND BETTENCOURT
minority groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 123-140. Ellemers, N., van Knippenberg, A., DeVries, N., & Wilke, H. (1988). Social identification and permeability of group boundaries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 497-513. Ellemers, N., van Knippenberg, A., & Wilke, H. (1990). The influence of permeability of group boundaries and stability of group status on strategies of individual mobility and social change. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 233-246. Ellemers, N., Wilke, H., & van Knippenberg, A. (1993). Effects of the legitimacy of low group or individual status on individual and collective status-enhancement strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 766-778. Festinger, L. (1954). Theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140. The current study may have important theo- Hogg, M. A., & Hardie, E. A. (1991). Social attracretical and applied implications. As noted, Tation, personal attraction, and self-categorization: A jfel and Turner (1986) argued that individual field study. Personality and Social Psychology mobility is an option for improving an individBulletin, 17, 175-180. ual's social identity. When people are not sat- Jackson, L. A., Sullivan, L. A., Harnish, R., & Hodge, C. N. (1996). Achieving positive social isfied with their social identity, they may choose identity: Social mobility, social creativity, and perto change their group membership as a means of meability of group boundaries. Journal of Personaccomplishing the consequence of identity enality and Social Psychology, 70, 241-254. hancement. However, as found in the current study, using the social mobility strategy is likely Kipnis, D., & Schmidt, S. M. (1988). Upward-influence styles: Relationship with performance evaluto involve a more complex set of consequences. ations, salary, and stress. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33, 528-542. Marques, J. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (1988). The black sheep effect: Judgmental extremity towards ingroup References members in inter- and intra-group situations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 287-292. Ansari, M. A., & Kapoor, A. (1987). Organizational context and upward influence tactics. Organiza- Marques, J. M., Yzerbyt, V. Y., & Leyens, J. P. (1988). The "black sheep effect": Extremity of tional Behavior and Human Decision Projudgments towards ingroup members as a function cesses, 40, 39-49. of group identification. European Journal of SoBranscombe, N. R., Wann, D. L., Noel, J. G., & cial Psychology, 18, 1-16. Coleman, J. (1993). In-group or out-group extremity: Importance of the threatened social identity. SAS Institute. (1985). SAS user's guide: Statistics (Version 5). Cary, NC: Author. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity 381-388. " theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & Chacko, H. E. (1990). Methods of upward influence, W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup motivational needs, and administrators' perceprelations (2nd ed., pp. 7-24). Chicago: Nelsontions of their supervisors' leadership styles. Group Hall. and Organization Studies, 15, 253-265. Cialdini, R. B., Borden, R. J., Thorne, A., Walker, Taylor, D. M., & McKirnan, D. J. (1984). Theoretical contributions: A five-stage model of intergroup M. R., Freeman, S., & Sloan, L. R. (1976). Baskrelations. British Journal of Social Psychology, 23, ing in reflected glory: Three (football) field studies. 291-300. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, Taylor, D. M., Moghaddam, F. M., Gamble, I., & 366-375. Zellerer, E. (1987). Disadvantaged group reCialdini, R. B., & Richardson, K. D. (1980). Two sponses to perceived inequality: From passive acindirect tactics of image management: Basking and ceptance to collective action. Journal of Social blasting. Journal of Personality and Social PsyPsychology, 127, 259-272. chology, 39, 406-415. Ellemers, N., Doosje, B. J., van Knippenberg, A., & Tesser, A. (1988). Toward a self-evaluation maintenance model of social behavior. In L. Berkowitz Wilke, H. (1992). Status protection in high status Finally, we did not measure whether in-group members understood that the group member attempting upward mobility was doing so for individualistic gain (which is theoretically the goal of social mobility). Perhaps participants believed that the upward mobility attempt was designed for collective gain. It may be that when the group member succeeded in the upward mobility attempt, the fellow in-group members saw this as an opportunity for access to the high power group's resources. However, if the latter were true, in-group members' evaluations of the member succeeding at upward mobility should have been positive regardless of the relative permeability of group boundaries.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
GAINING ACCESS INTO A HIGH POWER GROUP
(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology: Vol. 21. Social psychological studies of the self: Perspectives and programs (pp. 181-227). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Turner, J. C , Hogg, M. A., Turner, P. J., & Smith, P. M. (1984). Failure and defeat as determinants of group cohesiveness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 17, 97-111. van Knippenberg, A. (1978). Status differences, comparative relevance and intergroup differentiation. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 171-199). London: Academic Press.
91
van Knippenberg, A. (1984). Intergroup differences in group perceptions. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), The social dimension (Vol. 2, pp. 560-578). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. van Knippenberg, A., & Ellemers, N. (1993). Strategies in intergroup relations. In M. A. Hogg & D. Abrams (Eds.), Group motivation: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 17-32). London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Wright, S. C , Taylor, D. M., & Moghaddam, F. M. (1990). Responding to membership in a disadvantaged group: From acceptance to collective protest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58,
994-1003.
