Conflicting Motivations: Understanding How Low-Status Group Members Respond to Ingroup Discrimination Claimants

Previous research has found that among low-status individuals, both group identification (GID) and status-legitimizing beliefs (SLBs) motivate varying responses to ingroup discrimination claimants. SLBs are traditionally thought to motivate decreased support for low-status claimants, while GID is thought to motivate increased liking and support of ingroup members. The current research examines these conflicting influences on ingroup claimants among women (Studies 1a and 1b) and Latino/as (Studies 2 and 3). We find that when SLBs are strongly endorsed (Studies 1a, 1b, and 2) or primed (Study 3), GID does not predict liking or support for a claimant. Only when SLB endorsement is low and identity safety cues are absent does GID predict liking and support for a claimant. Our results suggest that when motivations conflict, SLBs seem to more strongly predict reactions to ingroup claimants.