Social Categorization, Self-Esteem, and the Estimated Musical Preferences of Male Adolescents

This article was downloaded by: [130.108.121.217]On: 06 September 2014, At: 12:21Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

The Journal of SocialPsychologyPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vsoc20

Social Categorization, Self-Esteem, and the EstimatedMusical Preferences of MaleAdolescentsMark Tarrant a , Adrian C. North a & David J.Hargreaves ba Department of Psychology , University ofLeicester , United Kingdomb Research, Development, and International Office ,Roehampton Institute , London, United KingdomPublished online: 02 Apr 2010.

To cite this article: Mark Tarrant , Adrian C. North & David J. Hargreaves (2001)Social Categorization, Self-Esteem, and the Estimated Musical Preferences of MaleAdolescents, The Journal of Social Psychology, 141:5, 565-581

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224540109600572

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vsoc20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224540109600572

losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

130.

108.

121.

217]

at 1

2:21

06

Sept

embe

r 20

14

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The Journal of Social Psvcholonv, 2001.141(5). 565-581

Social Categorization, Self-Esteem, and the Estimated Musical Preferences of

Male Adolescents

MARK TARRANT ADRIAN C. NORTH

Department of Psychology University of Leicester, United Kingdom

DAVID J. HARGREAVES Research, Development, and International Ofice Roehampton Institute, London, United Kingdom

ABSTRACT. The authors investigated the intergroup processes of male adolescents within the context of social identity theory (SIT; H. Tajfel, 1978; H. Tajfel & J. C. Turner, 1979). The participants were English male adolescents (age = 14-15 years). They estimated in-group and out-group musical preferences and evaluated the in-group and out- group along a series of scales. The results showed in-group favoritism effects along the musical preference and evaluative dimensions. The participants reported greater liking for the in-group. Compared with the out-group, they associated the in-group more with positively stereotyped music and less with negatively stereotyped music. Compared with the out-group, they rated the in-group as more fun, more masculine, more sporty, less boring, less snobbish, and less weird. The participants with lower levels of self-esteem showed greater differentiation between groups and greater derogation of the out-group. The results supported the predictions of SIT and demonstrated the applicability of SIT for the study of adolescent behavior.

Key words: evaluation, in-group, male adolescents, musical preferences, out-group, self- esteem, social categorization, social identity theory

SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY (SIT; Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel & Turner, 1979) maintains that individuals gain a social identity from the groups to which they belong. The theorists claim that members have a desire to evaluate their own group positively and that they achieve positive evaluations through social comparisons with relevant other groups along valued dimensions. One maintains positive social identity and self-esteem through in-group favoritism, positive distinction from the out- group, and, occasionally, out-group derogation (e.g., Noel, Wann, & Branscombe, 1995). In the present study, we investigated the degree to which SIT (Tajfel; Tajfel

565

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

130.

108.

121.

217]

at 1

2:21

06

Sept

embe

r 20

14

566 The Journal of Social Psychology

& Turner) would predict the behavior of English male adolescent groups; we also examined the role of self-esteem in adolescents’ group evaluations.

In a series of laboratory studies, Tajfel and his colleagues (e.g., Billig & Tajfel, 1973; Howard & Rothbart, 1980; Tajfel, Billig, Bundy, & Flament, 197 1) demonstrated the conditions under which social comparisons resulted in intergroup discrimination; they conducted experiments involving what has become known as the minimal group paradigm. In the allocation of monetary rewards to in-group members and out-group members, the participants differentiated the two groups: The participants typically chose the option of maximum diflerence in favor of the in-group (i.e., assigning the most money to the in-group and the least money to the out-group) over the options of fairness and maximum joint profit. Those studies demonstrated that merely categorizing people into groups (no matter how arbitrarily defined) may be sufficient to pro- mote intergroup discrimination.

The two corollaries of the self-esteem hypothesis (Abrams & Hogg, 1988) attempt to explain the proposed relationship between intergroup discrimination and self-esteem. According to Corollary 1. successful intergroup discrimination may lead to an increase in self-esteem; according to Corollary 2, low or threatened self-esteem may motivate increased intergroup discrimination. By that process, self-esteem may underlie the intergroup effects demonstrated by Tajfel and colleagues’ minimal group research. However, support for Abrams and Hogg’s two corollaries has been mixed. Lemyre and Smith (1985) found support for Corollary 1 ; their participants showed higher posttest self-esteem following the opportunity to discriminate in a minimal group setting (for similar results, see Oakes & Turner, 1980; Turner & Spriggs, 1982). Hunter, Platow, Howard, and Stringer (1996) investigated the intergroup processes of adolescents from Catholic and Protestant schools in Northern Ireland. Having completed a self- esteem scale 3 weeks earlier, the participants evaluated characteristics of pupils from their own school and those of pupils from a school of the opposite religious denomination. In addition to a clear display of in-group favoritism in the group evaluations, the participants achieved higher posttest self-esteem scores, thus providing support for Corollary 1 of the self-esteem hypothesis. Hogg and Sun- derland (1991) found support only for Corollary 2: The participants whose identity had been threatened through false feedback on a test (which, in turn, led to lower self-esteem) demonstrated greater discrimination in monetary allocation than did those who had received positive feedback. Other researchers, however,

The authors wish to thank C. k g g , G. Quigley, and the staff and pupils of Woodlands Comprehensive School, Coventry, UK. The authors are also grateful to two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an eartier draft of this article.

Full details of the present pilot study are available from the first author. Address correspondence to Mark Tarrant, Department of Psychology, University of

Leicester; University Road, Leicester; LEI 7RH, UK; [email protected] (e-mail).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

130.

108.

121.

217]

at 1

2:21

06

Sept

embe

r 20

14

Tarrant, North, & Hargreaves 567

did not find a relationship between self-esteem and subsequent discrimination (see Hogg & Sunderland for a review).

The precise role of self-esteem in intergroup processes is, therefore, unclear. Singh, Choo, and Poh (1998) provided a possible explanation for such lack of clarity by suggesting that intergroup discrimination represents a compromise between the need for positive self-esteem and the need to portray an image of fairness. Indeed, this suggestion was, perhaps, reflected by researchers (e.g., Mummendey & Schreiber, 1983; Mummendey & Simon, 1989) reporting that the participants were not always inclined to discriminate between social groups.

Other literature indicates that there may be a relationship between self- esteem and the extent to which people use certain strategies of intergroup discrimination. That literature may help to explain the lack of consistency in earlier studies. For instance, researchers have demonstrated the relationship of identity threat (a) to subsequent derogation of the out-group (Noel et al., 1995), (b) to subsequent posttest increases in self-esteem (Verkuyten, 1997), and (c) to the subsequent allocation of negative rewards to an out-group (Mummendey et al., 1992). Other researchers have indicated a relationship between threatened identity and subsequent use of in-group-favoring language (Maass, Ceccarelli, & Rudin, 1996). U.S. participants who were strongly identified with their national group, compared with those who were not strongly identified, and whose self- esteem had been lowered through a threat to identity showed increased derogation of a Russian out-group. Those participants also reported subsequent increases in self-esteem (Branscombe & Wann, 1994), thus providing support for both corollaries of the self-esteem hypothesis (Abrams & Hogg, 1988).

Branscombe and Wann (1994) may have been successful partly because they investigated the intergroup processes of real social groups (based on nationality). They suggested that out-group derogation is greater in situations in which individuals are highly identified with a group because such persons are unable to dis- tance themselves from that group when their group identity is threatened. Dero- gation of a threat-relevant out-group, therefore, may become a self-protective mechanism. It is possible that previous researchers did not demonstrate a consistent relationship between intergroup discrimination and self-esteem because they did not always use real intergroup situations. Participants in artificial groups are unlikely to have strong ties to the group and, thus, may not be highly motivated to protect their social identity. Hunter et al. (1996) agreed with the preceding premise and suggested that investigators may determine the effects of social categorization on intergroup discrimination and self-esteem only when the social categorization is genuine and meaningful.

In the present study, we investigated the potential of SIT (Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel & Turner, 1979) to explain the intergroup behavior of adolescent groups. We used essentially the same methods as previous researchers but also included sev- eral improvements recommended by them. In response to the contention (Branscombe & Wann, 1994; Turner, Brown, & Tajfel, 1979) that the dimension

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

130.

108.

121.

217]

at 1

2:21

06

Sept

embe

r 20

14


chosen for the group comparison must be relevant to the situation (i.e., valued and potentially identity threatening), we investigated English male adolescents’ comparisons of in-group and out-group musical preferences. Our decision to investigate musical behavior was guided by research implicating musical preference in adolescent processes (see Zillmann & Gan, 1997, for a review of adolescent involvement with music). More specifically, adolescents believe that their musical preferences are strongly related to those of their peers (Tarrant, 1999; van Wel, 1994), and their preferences may have positive or negative consequences for their evaluations of others (North & Hargreaves, 1999). As such, musical preference may be a valued and important dimension of adolescents’ social identity (see also Frith, 1983).

Despite the evidence linking musical preference with adolescent social behavior, few empirical researchers have actually addressed the consequences of musical preference for social identity; those who have done so have reported nonsignificant results (e.g., Zillmann et al., 1995). In the present study, we have contended that social identity theory predicts adolescent group behavior in a musical context. Specifically, male adolescents in an intergroup situation may associate their own group more than they associate the out-group with positively stereotyped music: They may engage in in-group favoritism in their estimates of group musical preferences. According to SIT (Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). the extent of such discrimination may be related to adolescents’ self-esteem. We summarized the foregoing predictions in terms of the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Male adolescent participants demonstrate a higher degree of

Hypothesis 2: Male adolescent participants rate the in-group more positive-

Hypothesis 3: Male adolescent participants associate the in-group more than

Hypothesis 4: Male adolescent participants associate the out-group more

Hypothesis 5: Pretest self-esteem is negatively related to subsequent inter-

Hypothesis 6: Intergroup discrimination is positively related to posttest self-

liking for the in-group than for the out-group.

ly than they rate the out-group in terms of evaluative characteristics.

they associate the out-group with positively stereotyped music.

than they associate the in-group with negatively stereotyped music.

group discrimination.

esteem.

PILOT STUDY

We conducted a pilot study (a) to establish the styles of music that adolescents positively and negatively stereotyped and (b) to identify words used in adolescent discourse to describe others of their age. We then used that information as material for the main study.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

130.

108.

121.

217]

at 1

2:21

06

Sept

embe

r 20

14


Participants in the pilot study were 27 pupils (age = 14-15 years, M = 14.58, SD = 0.50) whom we recruited from a single class (Year 10) available at the time of testing (summer term, 1998). The participants were all boys who attended a single-sex comprehensive school in the suburbs of a city in the West Midlands region of the United Kingdom. An informal discussion with the head teacher of the school indicated that the majority of pupils at the school were White and of lower-middle socioeconomic status. Before undertaking the research, we obtained consent from the participants’ parents or guardians; we also reminded the participants of their right not to take part in the study. The participants nominated as many styles as possible of music that they liked and disliked; then, they rated fans of the liked and the disliked music on 1 1-point Likert-type scales (0 = very untrue of fans of these styles, 10 = very true of fans of these styles, 5 = mid- poinf) on 10 personality characteristics (see Table 1). The participants then nominated as many adjectives as they could to describe boys their age who did not attend their school (i.e., a relevant out-group).

The participants nominated 66 styles of music. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) of the ratings of the fan characteristics revealed a main effect of fan characteristic, F(9, 198) = 7.00, p c .001, and a Level of Music Lik- ing (likeddisliked) x Fan Characteristic interaction, F(9, 198) = 15.30, p c .001 (see Table 1 for means, standard deviations, and univariate statistics). The participants held stereotypical beliefs about the music fans, such that they stereotyped fans of liked music positively and fans of disliked music negatively. They

TABLE 1 Univariate Statistics, Means, and Standard Deviations for the Level of Music

Liking x Fan Characteristic Interaction

Fans of Fans of liked disliked music music

Characteristic M SD M SD F df P

Positive Fun Popular Aware of youth issues Fashionable Amiable Nice

Negative Snobbish Almost friendless Boring Sophisticated

6.89 1.78 6.00 2.38 6.15 2.73 5.96 2.09 5.77 2.30 5.74 2.55

1.62 1.72 1.85 2.07 2.19 2.34 4.24 2.01

3.22 1.85 3.64 2.27 3.19 2.22 3.85 2.41 3.96 2.52 4.67 2.50

4.19 3.15 4.19 2.37 6.37 3.02 4.96 3.10

65.61 12.89 18.92 13.84 9.24 3.06

12.53 16.32 27.46

1.82

1.26 <.001 1,24 =.001 1,26 <.@I 1,25 <.001 1,25 = .006 1.26 = .092

1,25 = .002 1.26 <.001 1,26 c.001 1,24 =.I90

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

130.

108.

121.

217]

at 1

2:21

06

Sept

embe

r 20

14


nominated 97 words to describe members of the out-group. We conducted no specific analysis of those words because our purpose was simply to generate for the main study (in-groupout-group comparisons) words that are part of adolescent discourse.

MAIN STUDY

Method

Participants

The main study took place 1 week after the pilot study. Four classes of pupils (Year 10) were available at the time of testing. The participants in the main study were 97 pupils (age = 14-15 years, M = 14.67, SD = .47; all boys) who attended a single-sex comprehensive school in the suburbs of a city in the West Midlands region of the United Kingdom. We recruited them from the same school as in the pilot study, but none had taken part in the pilot. As in the pilot study, we obtained consent from the participants’ parents or guardians before we undertook the research; we reminded the participants of their right not to take part.

Design

The participants made a series of comparisons between pupils who attended their school (the in-group) and those who did not (the out-group). The independent variable (target group), therefore, had two levels, which we manipulated in a within-groups design. We examined the effect of the independent variable on three dependent variables: (a) the participants’ ratings for how well 12 adjectives described the in-group and out-group, (b) the participants’ liking for the in-group and out-group, and (c) the participants’ estimates of the in-group’s and the out- group’s liking for six styles of music (the scales are described in the Materials section).

To test Hypotheses 5 and 6, we assessed the participants’ self-esteem in a between-groups design. We randomly chose half of the sample to complete the self-esteem scale (Julian, Bishop, 8t Fiedler, 1966) before the group comparisons; the other half completed it after the group comparisons.

Materials

The first section of the response sheet presented 12 adjectives; the participants indicated how well each described (a) boys who attended their school (the in-group) and (b) boys who did not attend their school (the out-group). Results of the pilot study indicated that 6 of the adjectives had positive connotations (“nice,” “sporty:’ “intelligent,” “fun,” “masculine,” and “popular”) and 6 had

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

130.

108.

121.

217]

at 1

2:21

06

Sept

embe

r 20

14

Tarrant. North, & Hargreaves 571

negative connotations (“boring,” “snobbish,” “not fashionable,” “weird,” “unfriendly,” and “rebellious”). The participants used 1 1 -point Likert-type scales for all ratings (0 = does not describe us/rhem very well, 10 = describes us/them very well, 5 = midpoint). For the next item on the response sheet, the participants indicated, also on 1 1-point Likert-type scales, how much they liked boys who attended their school and boys who did not attend their school (0 = I dislike us/them very much, 10 = I like udthem very much, 5 = midpoint).

The second section of the questionnaire concerned the participants’ estimates of in-group and out-group musical preferences. We presented to the participants six musical styles, selected from the 66 nominated in the pilot study. The pilot participants had labeled styles as either liked (and described the fans positively) or disliked (and described the fans negatively). We presented the six styles of music in random order together with two examples of bands, composers, and artists for each style, also selected from the pilot study: The liked styles were dance (The Prodigy and Sash), pop (Hanson and All Saints), and indie (The Verve and Oasis). The disliked styles were jazz (Count Basie and Duke Ellington), classical (Beethoven and Mozart), and heavy metal (Iron Maiden and Metallica). The participants estimated the in-group’s and the out-group’s liking for each style on 11- point Likert-type scales (0 = dislike very much, 10 = like very much, 5 = midpoint). Then, we asked the participants to state their age, the number of hours per day they spent listening to music, and their own musical experiences; we provided space on the questionnaire for them to write their answers.

The self-esteem measure was identical to that employed in previous studies of social identity theory (e.g., Hogg & Sunderland, 1991; Lemyre & Smith, 1985), namely, an evaluative self-description questionnaire (Julian et al., 1966). That questionnaire provides a measure of transitory self-esteem (as used in previous intergroup research) in which participants report how they feel “at the moment” on 1 l-point Likert-type scales (0 = not at all, 10 = very much, 5 = midpoint) with respect to nine pairs of bipolar adjectives: pleasanthnpleasant, wardcold, hesitantlself-assured, effcienthnefficient, unfaidfair, goodhad, friendlyhnfriendly, hard working/lazy, and distantklose. Some of the words that may have been difficult to understand had either one or two definitions provided (The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 1995). We coded the scales for analysis so that a high score equaled high self-esteem.

Procedure

The study took place during four timetabled classes. We informed the participants that they were taking part in a study of issues concerning young people. The experimenter verbally reinforced the written instructions for each section. Throughout the session, we did not permit the participants to begin subsequent sections until everyone was ready. According to the participants’ instructions, the study was concerned with how they compared boys who attended their school

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

130.

108.

121.

217]

at 1

2:21

06

Sept

embe

r 20

14


with boys who did not attend their school (i.e., boys at other schools whom they might consider as rivals, or competitors). The participants first rated how well the 12 adjectives described the in-group and the out-group, rated their liking for the two groups, and then estimated the musical preferences for the in-group and the out-group.

The procedure for completion of the self-esteem scales was the same for the pretest and the posttest groups. For each pair of adjectives, the participants cir- cled the number that best described how they felt “at the moment.” We told them that the closer the chosen number was to either adjective on the page, the stronger that feeling was. (One bipolar adjective was at the left and the other at the right of the page. The scale was between the two adjectives, with 0 and 10 on the left and right, respectively.) The testing sessions lasted between 45 and 50 min; we debriefed the participants after they had completed all sessions.

Results

Participants reported listening to a mean of 2.18 hr (SD = 1.76) of music per day. From the musical-experience item, three independent raters judged 66.3% of the participants to have a low level of musical experience; 31.6%. a medium level of musical experience; and 2%, a high level of musical experience. There were no significant effects of musical experience in subsequent analyses; therefore, we did not address that variable further.

Group Liking

We compared the participants’ mean liking ratings for the in-group and the out-group by a related r test, r(90) = 6.72, p < .001. The participants clearly liked the in-group (M = 7.12, SD = 1.50) more than they liked the out-group (M = 5.10, SD = 2.26). Those findings supported Hypothesis 1.

Group Evaluation

We analyzed the respondents’ evaluations of the in-group and out-group on the 12 adjectives with a 2 (target group) x 12 (adjective) repeated measures MANOVA. There was a significant Target Group x Adjective Rating interaction, F(11,1034) = 20.64, p < .001 (for the means, standard deviations, and univariate statistics, see Table 2). There was a clear in-group favoritism effect: All but four of the group comparisons were significant. Notably, 1 1 of the 12 ratings were in the expected direction. Only the ratings for the adjective rebellious were in the direction opposite to that expected: The participants rated the in-group as more rebellious than the out-group. In comparison with the out-group, they regarded the in-group as more sporty, more fun, more masculine, more popular, less boring, less snobbish, and less weird. Those findings supported Hypothesis 2.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

130.

108.

121.

217]

at 1

2:21

06

Sept

embe

r 20

14


TABLE 2 Univariate Statistics, Means, and Standard Deviations €or the Target Group x

Adjective Rating Interaction

In-group Out-group

Adjective M SD M SD F df P

Positive sporty 8.91 1.26 6.60 1.73 166.93 1, 97 < .001 Popular 7.69 1.85 5.79 2.35 40.45 1,97 < .001 Masculine 7.12 2.46 5.19 1.82 60.37 1,96 < .001 Intelligent 6.93 1.68 6.58 1.83 2.25 1, 96 = .138 Fun 6.81 2.29 5.70 1.90 21.44 1,96 < .001 Nice 5.71 1.63 5.32 1.61 3.65 1, 97 = .059

Snobbish 3.07 2.77 4.85 2.68 27.25 1.97 < .001 Boring 3.85 2.73 5.00 2.52 10.89 1.97 = .001 Weird 4.23 2.72 4.88 2.53 4.93 1,97 =.029 Not fashionable 4.45 3.32 4.52 2.38 0.04 1,97 =.831 Unfriendly 5.07 2.75 5.15 2.28 0.06 1,97 = 302 Rebellious 6.81 2.44 5.47 2.57 17.89 1,97 < .001

Negative

Group Music Preference Estimates

We analyzed the in-group and out-group liking ratings of the six musical styles with a 2 (target group) x 6 (musical style) repeated measures MANOVA. There was a significant Target Group x Musical Style interaction, F(5, 485) = 19.58, p < .001 (for means, standard deviations, and univariate statistics, see Table 3). There was a clear in-group favoritism effect: The participants estimated that the in-group (a) would like positively stereotyped music more than the out-group would and (b) would like negatively stereotyped music less than the out-group would. Ratings of heavy metal were an exception to that finding and did not show a significant difference between estimations of the in-group and the out-group. Those findings, therefore, supported Hypotheses 3 and 4.

Self Esteem Effects

We assessed the internal consistency of the self-esteem scale (Julian et al., 1966) by computing Cronbach’s alpha (.75), which exceeded the minimum level (a = .70) recommended for research (Nunnally, 1978). Therefore, we conducted the analysis of self-esteem by using the mean value of the nine scaIes for each participant.

For each participant, we calculated in-group and out-group means for the three classes of dependent variable described in the Method section: (a) the par-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

130.

108.

121.

217]

at 1

2:21

06

Sept

embe

r 20

14


TABLE 3 Univarlate Statistics, Means, and Standard Deviations for the Target Group x

Musical Style Interaction

In-group Out-group liking liking

Musical style M SD M SD F df

Liked Indie 8.93 1.45 7.83 2.08 22.37 1,97 Dance 8.20 1.62 7.12 2.00 28.84 1.97 POP 7.60 1.85 7.17 1.89 7.45 1.97

Classical 0.62 1.36 1.99 2.83 25.30 1.97 Jazz 1.30 1.65 2.47 2.76 20.43 1.97 Heavy metal 4.89 2.52 4.78 2.32 0.20 1,97

Disliked

P

< .001 < .001 = .007

< .001 < .001 = .651

ticipants’ liking for the two groups, (b) their evaluation of the two groups with the 12 adjectives, and (c) their estimation of each group’s musical preferences. For the measure of group liking, we calculated a single in-group mean and a single out-group mean. For the group evaluations with the 12 adjectives, we calculated a single in-group mean and a single out-group mean for the positive adjectives (nice, sporty, intelligent, fun, masculine, and popular) and for the negative adjectives (boring, snobbish, not fashionable, weird, and unfriendly). We refer to those measures hereinafter as mean of the positive adjectives and mean of the negative adjectives, respectively. For the participants’ estimates of the groups’ musical preferences, we calculated a single in-group mean and a single out-group mean for the positively stereotyped music (pop, dance, and indie) and for the negatively stereotyped music (classical and jazz). Hereinafter, we refer to those measures as mean of the positively stereotyped music and mean of the negative- fy stereofyped music, respectively. Together, those calculations gave rise to five mean values each for the in-group and for the out-group-namely, mean liking, mean for the positive adjectives, mean for the negative adjectives, mean for the positively stereotyped music, and mean for the negatively stereotyped music. Given that responses to heavy metal music and to the adjective rebellious were not in the expected direction, we did not include those two items in the analysis of self-esteem. We consider the implications of the foregoing responses in the Discussion section.

Pretest Self-Esteem

In Hypothesis 5, we predicted that pretest self-esteem would be negatively related to subsequent intergroup discrimination. To test this proposition, we first

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

130.

108.

121.

217]

at 1

2:21

06

Sept

embe

r 20

14

Tamant, North, & Hargreaves 575

calculated the difference between the in-group and out-group on each of the five mean values described earlier. We then calculated the difference scores separate- ly; for the pretest self-esteem scores, we used the Pearson product-moment procedure. The correlation of pretest self-esteem with the difference between the groups in liking for negatively stereotyped music was significant, r = -.35, n = 47, p = .016. That negative correlation indicates that, at lower levels of self- esteem, the in-group increasingly differentiated itself from the out-group in terms of estimated liking for negatively stereotyped music.

We also performed Pearson correlations between pretest self-esteem and the five mean scores (described earlier) assigned to the in-group and out-group sepa- rately. There was a negative correlation between pretest self-esteem and the evaluation of the out-group on the negative adjectives, r = -.29, n = 47, p = .045. That correlation indicates a relationship between self-esteem and subsequent intergroup discrimination: Lower self-esteem was associated with increased derogation, or more negative perceptions, of the out-group. There was a marginally significant negative correlation between pretest self-esteem and the estimated out-group preference for negatively stereotyped music, r = -0.28, n = 47, p = .057. More simply, the participants with lower levels of self-esteem tended to associate the out-group increasingly with negatively stereotyped music. Last, there was a positive correlation between pretest self-esteem and the evaluation of the in-group on the positive adjectives, r = .31, n = 45, p = .039; that correlation indicates that higher self- esteem was associated with increased in-group favoritism.

Posttest Self-Esteem

In Hypothesis 6, we predicted that intergroup discrimination would be positively related to posttest self-esteem. To test that proposition, we calculated the same correlations for posttest self-esteem as for pretest self-esteem. None of the resulting coefficients were significant.

The preceding analyses provided some support for Hypothesis 5 and demonstrated a relationship between self-esteem and subsequent intergroup discrimination. Specifically, the participants with lower levels of self-esteem engaged in increased discrimination, which involved greater differentiation between the in- group and out-group as well as increased out-group derogation. The analyses did not reveal any support for Hypothesis &that intergroup discrimination would be positively related to posttest self-esteem.

Discussion

The present results demonstrate (a) that the male adolescents’ group membership influenced intergroup discrimination within a musical context and (b) that such discrimination was related to self-esteem. The present participants clearly liked the in-group more than they liked the out-group; our analysis of the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

130.

108.

121.

217]

at 1

2:21

06

Sept

embe

r 20

14


group evaluations (by adjectives) revealed that they also favored the in-group over the out-group. As compared with the out-group members, the participants associated the in-group members more with positive characteristics and less with negative characteristics: They rated the in group as more sporty, more fun, more masculine, more popular, less boring, less snobbish, and less weird than out- group members.

For the adjective rebellious, the finding that responses were in the direction opposite to that expected makes it unclear whether the participants considered rebelliousness as a negative trait, Separate analysis of that item as a positive and as a negative adjective further confirmed its ambiguity: When we treated it as a negative adjective. the pattern of results remained unchanged; however, when we treated it as a positive adjective, the relationship between pretest self-esteem and in-group evaluation (reported earlier) was nonsignificant. Accordingly, we did not include that item in the analysis.

The pattern of responses for the music-preference estimates further demonstrated the extent to which social identity theory may predict the behavior of adolescents in red intergroup situations. The participants reported significant differences in the estimated preferences of the in-group and out-group for five of the six styles of music rated. The pilot participants had categorized dance, indie, and pop music as liked music and had associated fans of such music with positive characteristics (e.g., popular, fashionable, and fun). In contrast, the pilot participants had categorized classical and jazz music as disliked music and had associated its fans with negative characteristics (e.g.. boring, snobbish, and unfriendly). By estimating that the in-group liked dance, indie, and pop music more than the out-group did, the participants in the main study were, by implication, also associating their own group more than the out-group with the positive characteristics of fans of liked music. Conversely, by estimating that the out-group liked classical and jazz music more than the in-group did, the participants were associating the out-group more than the in-group with the negative characteristics of disliked music. Mean liking ratings for heavy metal music were quite close to the midpoint (see Table 3); those ratings suggest that the participants did not hold firm opinions about heavy metal music. Therefore, differential group ratings did not have any consequences for the participants’ social identity-that is, heavy metal music was not an important feature of the male adolescents’ social identity.

The foregoing results, together with the findings for group liking and group evaluation with the 12 adjectives, demonstrate that the male adolescents in the present study were motivated to evaluate their own group more positively than they evaluated the out-group. Our results are in line with previous findings (e.g., Tajfel et al., 1971) of in-group favoritism in comparisons of the in-group and the out-group. In other words, social identity theory may predict the behavior of adolescent groups when they make group comparisons along valued dimensions such as music. That finding is consistent with those of earlier studies (Branscombe & Wann, 1994; Hunter et al., 1996; see also Turner et al., 1979).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

130.

108.

121.

217]

at 1

2:21

06

Sept

embe

r 20

14


Our results confirm previous findings that direct out-group derogation was less common than in-group favoritism (e.g., Brewer, 1979; Judd, Park, Ryan, Brauer, & Kraus, 1995; Singh et al., 1998; Spears & Manstead, 1989; Struch & Schwartz, 1989; Turner, 1978). For each set of comparisons, the mean ratings for the in-group and the out-group were either above or below the scale midpoint (refer to Tables 2 and 3 and to data in the text). Such means do not suggest that the participants rated the in-group positively and the out-group negatively; rather, they suggest that the participants consistently rated the in-group more favorably than they rated the out-group. Such a pattern of responses, particularly for the estimates of music preference, was, of course, the only real option for the participants. If they indicated that the out-group did not like positively stereotyped music (i.e., if the out-group ratings were below the midpoint), such a response would clearly be unrealistic: Why would the out-group not like positively stereotyped music? By reporting that the out-group liked the positively stereotyped music, “but not as much as we do,” the participants were able to maintain a sense of integrity, believing that they had given a justifiable answer that enabled them to maintain a positive social identity. In that sense, the participants may have been influenced by the norm of fairness (Singh et al.).

The present results also highlight the conditions in which people may engage in specific forms of intergroup discrimination. First, there was a negative correlation between pretest self-esteem and differentiation from the out-group in the estimates of music preference: The lower the male adolescents’ self-esteem was, the greater were the differences perceived between the in-group and the out- group in the preference for negatively stereotyped music. Second, pretest self- esteem was negatively related to out-group derogation: The lower the adolescents’ self-esteem was, the more they associated the out-group with (a) negative characteristics (i.e., boring, snobbish, unfashionable, weird, and unfriendly) and (b) a liking for negatively stereotyped music.

Our findings concur with those of previous researchers who have linked self- esteem to subsequent intergroup discrimination (e.g., Branscombe & Wann, 1994; Maass et al., 1996; Mummendey et al., 1992; Noel et al., 1995; Verkuyten. 1997). Nor are our findings completely at odds with those of Singh et al. (1998), who suggested that intergroup discrimination represents a compromise between the need to maintain a positive identity and the desire to portray an image of fair- mindedness (noted earlier). According to the present results, the participants with higher scores for pretest self-esteem had higher ratings for in-group favoritism, increasingly associating the in-group with the positive characteristics (nice, sporty, intelligent, fun, masculine, and popular). In situations in which self- esteem is threatened, the need to enhance self-esteem may overrule the norm of fairness; thus, participants may engage in a self-protective strategy (Branscombe & Wann), which they may achieve through increased differentiation from, and derogation of, the out-group.

Although such behavior may be a means of specifically restoring self-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

130.

108.

121.

217]

at 1

2:21

06

Sept

embe

r 20

14


esteem (as predicted by social identity theory and Hypothesis 6 in the present study), the present findings did not support Hypothesis 6: None of the strategies of discrimination were related to posttest self-esteem. That result may be a product of the experimental design rather than a lack of support for the self-esteem hypothesis (Abrams & Hogg, 1988). We assessed pre- and posttest self-esteem in a between-groups design. Following Hogg and Sunderland (1991). we attempted to avoid the response bias that may occur in testing self-esteem in a within- groups design (i.e., before and after a relatively short experimental task). The outcome, however, was that we could not assess the effects of the group comparisons on those participants with lower levels of pretest self-esteem. It may, therefore, be more appropriate for future researchers to use a within-groups design, to examine directly the subsequent effects of group comparisons on participants with lower levels of pretest self-esteem.

We must mention some limitations of the present study. The present English male adolescents used musical preference to differentiate between social groups. The degree to which these findings can be generalized to other social groups (e.g., in other cultures, among different social classes or ethnic groups) remains to be determined. Of immediate interest is the degree to which our findings may predict the intergroup behavior of female adolescents. Given that female adolescents sometimes report less group cohesion and investment in their peer groups than do their male counterparts (see Gavin & Furman, 1989). the intergroup behavior of female adolescents may be different from that of male adolescents; that possibility requires examination. In addition. we have shown that music was an important dimension for intergroup comparison for male adolescents of an age at which music is an important part of their identity (see Zillmann & Gan, 1997). It follows that other age groups, for whom music is a less prominent feature of lifestyle, may not use music in the same way.

One should note that, although we operationalized social categorization in terms of school membership (cf. Aebischer, Hewstone, & Henderson, 1983). it is likely that (a) under certain circumstances, adolescents would categorize themselves as members of more inclusive groups (e.g., adolescents in general); and (b) under other circumstances, as members of less inclusive groups (e.g., members of an elite stream of students within the school, or “jock-populars”; see Brown & Lohr, 1987). Following self-categorization theory (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987), whether individuals define themselves pri- marily in terms of more inclusive or less inclusive social categories depends on the salience of the social categorization. Adolescents may be likely to engage in comparisons between an in-group and an out-group within the same school (Le., a less inclusive categorization) if that categorization is salient; however, they may make comparisons between their school as a whole and a different school (i.e., a more inclusive categorization) when that Categorization becomes salient. To the degree that the group members identify with the salient categorization, the categorization forms a guide for behavior and engagement in social identity process-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

130.

108.

121.

217]

at 1

2:21

06

Sept

embe

r 20

14

Tarrant, North, 8t Hargreaves 579

es. Our finding that the participants reported liking the in-group more than they liked the out-group, together with the observation that the pilot participants nominated adjectives to describe the out-group, helps confirm that the social categorization was real and meaningful to the present participants.

In conclusion, we have demonstrated that social identity theory may predict the behavior of male adolescent groups when they make group comparisons along valued dimensions. Furthermore, we have shown that self-esteem and identity may be crucial to explanations of adolescent development. Musical preferences were a valued dimension: The present English male adolescents believed that musical preferences were indicative of their fans’ likely characteristics; they used those preferences and other evaluative characteristics to achieve positive distinction from the out-group. Among the participants with higher levels of self-esteem, group behavior appeared to be based more on in-group favoritism (more favorable evaluations of the in-group) than on direct intergroup discrimination. When self-esteem was lower or threatened, there was an increased tendency to differentiate the in- group from, and to derogate, the out-group. We did not confirm here the effects of successful discrimination, or differentiation, on subsequent self-esteem; future researchers should continue to explore this issue. Future researchers should also continue to acknowledge the potential of social identity theory to explain the every- day behavior of adolescents within their peer groups.

REFERENCES Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (1988). Comments on the motivational status of self-esteem

in social identity and intergroup discrimination. European Journal of Social Psycholo-

Aebischer. V.. Hewstone, M., & Henderson, M. (1983). Minority influence and musical preference: Innovation by conversion not coercion. European Journal of Social Psy-

Billig, M., & Tajfel, H. (1973). Social categorization and similarity in intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 21-52.

Branscombe, N. R., & Wann, D. L. (1994). Collective self-esteem consequences of out- group derogation when a valued social identity is on trial. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 641-667.

Brewer, M. B. (1979). Ingroup bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive- motivational analysis. Psychological BulIetin, 86, 307-324.

Brown, B. B., & Lohr, M. J. (1987). Peer group affiliation and adolescent self-esteem: An integration of ego-identity and symbolic interaction theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 47-55.

Frith, S. (1983). Sound effects: Youth, leisure and the politics of rock ‘n’ roll. New York: Pantheon.

Gavin, L. A., & Furman, W. (1989). Age differences in adolescents’ perceptions of their peer groups. Developmental Psychology, 25, 827-834.

Hogg, M. A., & Sunderland, J. (1991). Self-esteem and intergroup discrimination in the minimal group paradigm. British Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 5 1-62.

Howard, J., & Rothbart, M. (1980). Social categorization and memory for ingroup and outgroup behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 165-188.

gy, 18, 317-338.

chology, 14, 23-33.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

130.

108.

121.

217]

at 1

2:21

06

Sept

embe

r 20

14


Hunter, J. A., Platow, M. J.. Howard, M. L., & Stringer, M. (1996). Social identity and intergroup evaluative bias: Realistic categories and domain specific self-esteem in a conflict setting. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 631-647.

Judd, C. M., Park, B., Ryan, C. S., Brauer, M., & Kraus, S. (1995). Stereotypes and eth- nocentrism: Diverging interethnic perceptions of African American and White Ameri- can youth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 460-48 1.

Julian, J. W., Bishop, D. W., & Fiedler, F. E. (1966). Quasi-therapeutic effects of intergroup competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 32 1-327.

Lemyre, L., & Smith, P. M. (1985). Intergroup discrimination and self-esteem in the minimal group paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 660-670.

Maass, A., Ceccarelli, R., & Rudin, S. (1996). Linguistic intergroup bias: Evidence for in- group-protective motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71,

Mummendey, A., & Schreiber, H. J. (1983). Better or just different? Positive social identity by discrimination against, or by differentiation from out-groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 13, 389-397.

Mummendey, A., & Simon, B. (1989). Better or different? 111. The impact of comparison and relative in-group size upon intergroup discrimination British Journal of Social Psy-

Mummendey, A,, Simon, B., Dietze, C., Griinert, M., Haeger, G., Kessler, S., Lettgen, S., & Schiiferhoff, S. (1992). Categorization is not enough: Intergroup discrimination in negative outcome allocation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 125-144.

Noel, J. G., Wann, D. L., & Branscombe, N. R. (1995). Peripheral ingroup membership status and public negativity toward outgroups. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-

North, A. C., & Hargreaves, D. J. (1999). Music and adolescent identity. Music Education

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Oakes, P. J., & Turner, J. C. (1980). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour: Does

minimal intergroup discrimination make social identity more positive? European Jour- nal of Social Psychology, 10, 295-30 1.

Oxford advanced learner's dictionary (5th ed.). (1995). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Singh, R., Choo, W. M., & Poh, L. L. (1998). In-group bias and fair-mindedness as strategies of self-presentation in intergroup perception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 147-162.

Spears, R., & Manstead, A. S. R. (1989). The social context of stereotyping and differentiation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 19, 101-121.

Struch, N., & Schwartz, S. H. (1989). Intergroup aggression: Its predictors and distinct- ness from in-group bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 364-373.

Tajfel. H. (1978). Direrentiation between social groups. London: Academic Press. Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and

intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, I , 149-178. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G.

Austin & S . Worchel (Eds.). The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 3347). Monterey CA: Brooks-Cole.

Tarrant, M., (1999). Musical and social development in adolescence. Unpublished doc- toral dissertation. University of Leicester, Leicester. United Kingdom.

Turner, J. C. (1978). Social categorization and social discrimination in the minimal group paradigm. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation bemeen social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 101-140). London: Academic Press.

5 12-526.

chology, 28, 1-16.

chology, 68, 127-137.

Research, 1, 75-92.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

130.

108.

121.

217]

at 1

2:21

06

Sept

embe

r 20

14


Turner, J. C., Brown, R. J., & Tajfel, H. (1979). Social comparison and group interest in ingroup favouritism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 9, 187-204.

Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D.. & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Redis- covering the social group: A seff-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Turner, J. C., & Spriggs, D. (1982). Social categorization, intergroup behaviour and self- esteem: A replication. Unpublished manuscript, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.

Verkuyten, M. ( 1997). Intergroup evaluation and self-esteem motivations: Self-enhance- ment and self-protection. European Journal ofSocial Psychology, 27, 1 15-1 19.

Wel, F. van. (1994). A culture gap between the generations? Social influences on youth cultural style. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 4, 21 1-228.

Zillmann, D., Aust, C. F., Hoffman, K. D., Love, C. C., Ordman, V. L., Pope, J. T., Sei- gler, P. D., & Gibson, R. J. (1995). Radical rap: Does it further ethnic division? Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 16, 1-25.

Zillmann, D., & Gan, S. (1997). Musical taste in adolescence. In D. J. Hargreaves & A. C. North (Eds.), The social psychology of music (pp. 161-187). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Received November 23, 1999 Accepted May 22, 2000

I Dow

nloa

ded

by [

130.

108.

121.

217]

at 1

2:21

06

Sept

embe

r 20

14

Documents

Social Categorization, Self-Esteem, and the Estimated Musical Preferences of Male Adolescents