Page 66 - Discrimination at Work The Psychological and Organizational Bases

3. RELATIONAL DEMOGRAPHY
43
based on these categorizations provide individuals with the means for
forming their own social identities. For example, a Caucasian female may
define or identify herself based on the characteristics she uses for social
categorization: I am a female in my thirties, I am Caucasian, and I have a
masters degree (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Riordan, 2000). "These identifica­
tions are to a very large extent (inherently) relational and comparative: they
define the individual as similar to or different from, as 'better' or 'worse'
than, members of other groups" (Tajfel & Turner, 1979, p. 40).
Relational demography research, which is based on such comparative
differences, often uses the concepts related to social identity as a theoret­
ical foundation. In Ely's (1994) study of women's proportional represen­
tation as partners in law firms, it was concluded "social identity (theory)
may link an organization's demographic composition with an individuals'
workplace experiences" (p. 203). She found that women partners in firms
with fewer senior women were less likely to experience positive outcomes,
such as support from women peers and perceptions about advancement
opportunities.
According to social identity and self-categorization theory, individu­
als categorize themselves and similar others as comprising the ingroup
and categorize dissimilar others into the outgroup(s). Individuals' reac­
tions to others are driven by needs to reduce uncertainty and to maintain
or enhance their self-esteem (social identity needs). In an effort to favor­
ably differentiate the ingroup from a relevant outgroup, dissimilarity or
"otherness" is seen as a deficiency and is often the basis for derogation,
stereotypes, and polarization directed toward outgroup members (Hogg
& Terry, 2000; Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Williams & O'Reilly, 1998).
In an experiment designed to test the basic propositions behind social
identity theory, Turner, Brown, and Tajfel (1979) expected that subjects
would be willing to sacrifice monetary rewards to achieve positive group
distinctiveness. In addition, they hypothesized that ingroup favoritism
would be greater when rewards were higher and when the outgroup was
more relevant, or had a more salient comparative meaning. Results of their
study supported these hypotheses. Subjects sacrificed both group and per­
sonal incentives in favor of intergroup differences that put ingroups at an
advantage relative to outgroups (Turner et al., 1979). In addition, ingroup
treatment toward outgroup members (in terms of fairness and discrimina­
tion) was more derogatory when the outgroup was particularly relevant
to ingroup members, in a social comparison sense.
In the work environment, demographic characteristics, such as age, gen­
der, race, and education, may be particularly salient and will therefore
likely be used for making ingroup/outgroup differentiations. Demographic
characteristics are highly visible, and, thus, offer employees simple cues for