The influence of social identity salience on appraisals

In contrast to the hypothesis however, others’ choice to compete (i.e., assumed to be perceived as a “negative” act by other) did not lead to higher appraisals of causal attribution due to personality (i.e., “internal” factor) than other’s choice to collaborate (i.e., assumed to be perceives as a “positive” act by other). In fact, irrespective of whether the computer competed or collaborated participants tended to give higher ratings to appraisal of causal attribution to group membership than to appraisal of causal attribution to personality. In this experimental context, this result is not

surprising since the only thing that participants knew about the other person was their group membership. Moreover, higher rates of attribution to group membership were reported when the computer competed than when the computer collaborated. In line with Weiner (1986), this result may simply show that participants were more likely to look out for causal explanations when the situation was negative.

3.4.2. The influence of social identity salience on appraisals

In response to the first research question, these results provide only partial support for hypotheses concerning the impact of social identity salience when appraising an event pertinent to the salient social identity, and in particular on appraisal dimensions of goal significance (i.e., conduciveness), agency/responsibility (i.e., causal attribution to other’s group membership), and compatibility with personal standards and ingroup norms (i.e., unjust and unfair as considered by self, and as considered by ingroup).

Results of analyses conducted for all cases showed that when appraising other’s choice to collaborate, there was some evidence (Event3) that participants in the high social identity salience condition rated conduciveness higher than participants in the low social identity salience condition (H4). When appraising other’s choice to compete, no significant differences were observed between social identity salience conditions.

When analyses were run on the sub-sample of participants who systematically

competed, a different picture emerged. When appraising other’s choice to collaborate, participants in the high social identity condition (Event 2 in the mostly collaborative condition) rated causal attribution to other’s PRODUCTION outgroup membership (H7) higher than participants in the low social identity salience condition. They also rated unfairness and injustice as considered by self ³⁶ (H8) higher than participants in the low social identity salience condition. When appraising other’s choice to compete, participants in the high social identity condition (Event 1 in the mostly collaborative condition) tended (p=.07) to rate causal attribution to other’s PRODUCTION

outgroup membership (H7) higher than participants in the low social identity salience condition. They also rated unfairness and injustice as considered by self (H8) higher than participants in the low social identity salience condition.

Although no specific hypotheses were made concerning how participants’ responses may be affected by the type of overall strategy (i.e., that is whether the computer mostly collaborated and mostly competed across the 3 events) and time (3 events), our results show that there was a strong effect. More interestingly, the effect of social identity salience condition on appraisal was sometimes different in the two overall strategy conditions, and these differences sometimes changed in time.

First, the effect of social identity on appraisal of conduciveness was significant only in the mostly collaborative condition and only in the last Event. In this condition the computer started competing in Event 1, and then switched to collaboration for Events 2 and 3. The ratings of conduciveness for participants in both social identity salience condition remained quite similar for the first 2 Events. The main difference between

36 It should be noted that as expected, these ratings were lower than when appraising competition.

social identity salience conditions occurred between Events 2 and 3, because there was a significant decrease in the ratings of participants in the low social identity salience condition. Why were the ratings of participants in the low social identity condition lower in Event 3? One explanation could be that participants in the high social identity salience condition may have been more pleasantly surprised by the fact that the other collaborated again (if they were perceiving the interaction as an

competitive intergroup situation they would have expected the computer to switch back to competition in Event3). Results on ratings for surprise support this

interpretation: In the mostly collaborative condition, overall ratings for surprise increased significantly between Event 1 and Event 2, and between Event 2 and Event 3. However, for participants in the low social identity salience condition, this patterns was slightly different and in fact the ratings of surprise actually decreased between Events 2 and 3.

Second, the effect of social identity on appraisal of causal attribution to other’s PRODUCTION outgroup membership was also significant only in the mostly collaborative condition and only when analyses were run on the sub-sample of competitors. In this experiment the intergroup dimension of the interaction and consequently “other’s group membership” was made more salient before the interaction only to participants in the high social identity salience condition.

However, it cannot be excluded that the salience of “other’s PRODUCTION outgroup membership” may have become salient for participants in the low social identity salience condition during the interaction. One interpretation may be that the fact that these participants were systematically competing combined with greater exposure to competition in the mostly competitive condition may have rendered “other’s

PRODUCTION outgroup membership” salient for participants in the low social identity. This would explain why differences between social identity salience conditions were not significantly differently in the mostly competitive condition. In fact, this interpretation is supported by the social identity and overall strategy interaction observed on the manipulation check question which asked participants at the end of the negotiation to what extent they had identified to the R & D department.

For participants in the low social identity salience condition levels of identification were the strongest in the mostly competitive condition, and in fact they were just as high as that of participants in the high social identity salience condition.

Taken together results on the impact of overall strategy condition and time are a strong reminder that social identity salience is highly dynamic, and it can change both in terms of type and content as a function of intergroup relations and other immediate contextual factors (Hogg, Terry & White, 1995). In this experiment it cannot be assumed that the social identity salience manipulations (which consisted in enhancing the intergroup dimension of the computerized negotiation task for participants in the high social identity salience condition, and to enhance the interpersonal dimension of these negotiations task for participants in the low social identity salience condition) remained effective in a consistent way throughout the 3 experimental events in time.

Moreover, it cannot be assumed that the order of presentation and/or the number of times that the “other” competed or collaborated did not affect social identity salience.

In this type of design, it becomes difficult to anticipate in which way social identity salience might evolve, and the processes that may intervene. For example, it is possible that participants’ social identity salience may have also been affected by the content of the experimental events themselves, or by the other aspects of the

interaction with the virtual “other”.