Lorraine Wang
2017 Spring Semester Project
05/03/2017
Constrained Choice Study
My semester long project in 2017 spring is the Constrained Choice Study with Sarah. In
this project, we want to study the effects of constrains on social identity. The concept of social
identity complexity refers to the individuals’ subjective representation of the interrelationships
among the groups that them identify themselves in (Rocca & Brewer, 2002). In the research of
Rocca & Brewer (2002), the results have showed that social identity complexity influences the
personal value of priorities and the tolerance of outgroup members.
Results from previous studies indicated that the less constraint for people leads to more
recognition of increased social identity complexity, and more recognition decreases normative
tightness and increase individuals’ tolerance (Rocca & Brewer, 2002). Normative tightness refers
to the degree to which social norms are pervasive, clearly defined, and reliably imposed in each
social group. Thus, we can imply that the high threat will decreases complexity, increase
similarity, and decrease tolerance.
Another dispensable term in our study, the social identity threat, refers to situations in
which individuals feel they might be judged by others based on the stereotypes of their group
identities. As social identity theory assumes (Tajfel & Turner, 1986), individuals strive to
maintain a positive perception of their groups and collectives. Scheepers and Ellemers, in 2005,
found that social identity threats not only happen in low status group, but also in high status
group. Previous study also indicated that the stereotype of social identity occurs at the level of
basic rather than superordinate categories (Brewer, Dull, & Lui, 1981). One recently study from
Gelfand et al. (2011) stated that the stereotyping threats predicts increased normative tightness.
Therefore, there more stereotyping threats occurs among people, the less flexible attitudes they
have toward the social identity issues.
Past Results
This study has been conducted for three years. The first iteration focused on general
constraint, and researchers hypothesized that a smaller number of choices, which was the high
constraint situation, would prime for stricter norms and less tolerance of heterogeneity in
identification. However, the data showed no significant effect and against the former hypothesis.
Since the first iteration only recruited 88 participants, the small sample size might be the reason
of the non-significant results.
In the second iteration, researcher studied about gender specific constraint. The high
constraint condition included only male/female options for gender, and the low constraint
condition had 10 gender options. The hypothesis was that seeing gender diversity on
demographic questionnaires would increase tolerance of gender nonconformity and decrease
general normative tightness. The results from the second iteration indicated a significant effect of
condition on avoidance, which means participants in lower constraint condition were less likely
to choose avoidance under the situations given in survey. In addition, participants who identified
themselves as Republicans showed higher rates of avoidance on average. Republicans also
showed higher normative tightness and less tolerance for gender non-conformity. For the
justification and immorality questions, Republican participants made the choices with less
justifiable and more immoral attitude.
Method
We recruited college students from University of Wisconsin Madison as our participants,
and there were total 145 participants provided data through online survey. Participants were
provided a link of a demographic survey on Qualtric, and there were two conditions under the
manipulation: high constraint condition and low constraint condition. In the present study’s
constrained choice paradigm, a smaller number of choices should prime for stricter norms and
less tolerance of heterogeneity in identification, and more options could have the opposite
effects. The survey included 6 questions about normative tightness, 9 questions about support, 6
questions about justification, 10 questions about avoidance, 17 questions about genderism and
transphobia scale, and 15 questions about morality. Comparing to the previous iterations, we
have been worked on developing new items under the avoidance, justification, and support
categories.
For this semester’s iteration, we still choose to focus on genderism and transphobia scale,
especially about gender nonconforming. Our new hypothesis is that “seeing gender diversity on
demographic questionnaires would be a threatening experience, and it would decrease tolerance
of gender nonconformity and increase general normative tightness”.
Results
After the run the R analysis, the results indicate that seventy participants were under low
constraint condition, and seventy-five participants were under high constraint condition. The
results showed no significant differences in outcomes across measure. For immorality and
justification, the bar graphs showed different trends. Morality is under the category of social
identity complexity, which means high constraint increases normative tightness, whereas the data
for justification, which is related to threatening experience, indicates that low constraint
increases normative tightness among people.
The graph of avoidance indicated significant differences under the political affiliation
condition. Participants who identified themselves as Republicans showed significantly higher
level of avoidance than people who identified themselves as Democrats or N/A. For
Republicans, participants in low constraint condition show a slightly higher level of avoidance
than participants in high constraint condition. The data of Democrats showed the same results.
However, people who chose N/A as the their political affiliation showed that higher constraint
leaded to higher level of avoidance. The results from the bar graph of political affiliation offered
a new demographic to constrain.
Future direction
Because of the results from Republicans showed significant differences for avoidance
items, we assume that political affiliation can be an influential factor for social constraints study.
Therefore, for future research, we will concentrate on other demographic topics, such as political
affiliation, race, and religion. For study of race, further study can create some items toward
minority population, including African Americans, Asian American, Hispanic American, and
Native America. One of the most popular topics about race and racism is “BlackLivesMatter”.
We can create some items base on the events about this topic for the outcome measure of
avoidance, justification and support. Moreover, another controversial racial issue is the scandal
of the United Airline: airline officer violently dragged a Vietnamese American passenger off an
overbooked plane in O’hare International Airport. This event can provide some items for the
aspect of Asian American. Some other social issues like the violence from White police officers
toward African Americans, stereotypes toward Native Americans on campus, and discrimination
toward Hispanic Americans in job market can all be applied to future items.
About the topic of religion, our society has some stereotypes about Islamic people, and
the advocating hatred of Islam is also a serious issue for modern American. In addition, we can
study about the general attitudes toward people in other religions, such as Buddhist, Jewish, and
Hinduist. Personally, I do not have much knowledge and experience about religions, but we can
create new outcome measures based on current news or previous studies.
Furthermore, we need to come up with more items for the category of tolerance. As the
idea that we have right now, the questions for tolerance can be “how much do you like someone
[under certain situations]?” and “in what level can you tolerate their presence in your life?”.
References
Brewer, M. B., Dull, V., & Lui, L. (1981). Perceptions of the elderly: Stereotypes as
prototypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(4), 656.
Ellemers, N., & Van Rijswijk, W. (1997). Identity needs versus social opportunities: The use of
group-level and individual-level identity management strategies. Social psychology
quarterly, 52-65.
Roccas, S., & Brewer, M. B. (2002). Social identity complexity. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 6(2), 88-106.
Scheepers, D., & Ellemers, N. (2005). When the pressure is up: The assessment of social identity
threat in low and high status groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41(2),
192-200.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (2004). The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior.
Bar Graphs