PERCEIVED INTRAGROUP VARIABILITY AS A FUNCTION OF GROUP STATUS AND IDENTIFICATION

Judgments of intragroup variability were examined as a function of relative group status and identification with the group. In the first study (n = 131), psychology students received false feedback that their group was more or less intelligent than a comparable outgroup (business students) in order to manipulate relative ingroup status. Subjects were divided into high and low identifiers on the basis of their scores on an ingroup identification measure. As well as rating both groups on a series of comparative dimensions, subjects rated the similarities within their group. Although there was no difference in similarity ratings between high and low identifiers when ingroup status was high, low status subjects who identified weakly with their group rated within-group similarity as significantly less than high identifiers. In the second study (n = 101) both status and group identification were manipulated experimentally. Subjects were categorized as belonging to one of two groups, ostensibly on the basis of their problem solving style, and they received false feedback on a subsequent task indicating that their group had performed better or worse than the other group on a series of personnel decision problems. Group identification was manipulated by means of false feedback reinforced by a ''bogus pipeline'' procedure. Ratings of ingroup (and outgroup) variablility as measured by the perceived range of group scores on various positive dimensions, replicated the interaction obtained the first study. In the high status condition, ingroup identification did not affect the perceived range of group scores whereas under low group status, subjects in the low identification condition perceived greater intragroup variation than did subjects in the high identification condition. The differential perception and use of variability judgments by high and low group identifiers in the face of a threatened group image is discussed in terms of social identity principles. (C) 1995 Academic Press, Inc.