Content uploaded by Michael Platow
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Michael Platow on Nov 01, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
On helping lower status out-groups: The nature of the help and the
stability of the intergroup status hierarchy
Emily Cunningham and Michael J. Platow
The Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia
The current research expanded upon previous theoretical and empirical arguments regarding the nature of
intergroup helping. In doing so, we considered the role of relative in-group status, the stability of this status, and
the type of help provided. In a scenario study, we observed that members of a relatively high status group more
strongly supported the provision of assistance to in-group members than members of a lower status out-group
when the assistance was empowering in nature and when the high in-group status was unstable. When the
intergroup status differences were stable, however, support for empowerment help to members of a lower status
out-group was not significantly lower than support for such help to in-group members. We discuss these data with
reference to realistic intergroup conflict theory and social identity theory.
Key words: intergroup helping, realistic intergroup conflict, social identity.
Introduction
In his classic paper entitled ‘Ethnocentric and other
altruistic motives’, Campbell (1965, p. 283) tied altruistic
motives and behaviours to group memberships, so that, in
the context of his discussion, not only is altruism directed
primarily (if not solely) toward in-group members, but it is
the outcome of group membership. This portrayal of the
role of group membership in affecting the expression
of pro-social behaviour has since received considerable
empirical confirmation. In the current paper, we briefly
review the literature providing this confirmation, while
highlighting important moderating variables. We then
present an experiment examining differences in support of
a specific form of help for members of one’s in-group
compared to a relevant out-group in the presence or absence
of a potential moderating variable related to the nature of
intergroup relations, specifically the relative threat to the
status of one’s in-group from the out-group.
On the role of group membership in
the production of help-giving behaviour
The empirical work examining the role of group member-
ship in the production of help-giving behaviour shows that
people report being more likely to help in-group than
out-group members (Levine, Cassidy, Brazier, & Reicher,
2002), and they actually do so, both in the field (Piliavin,
Rodin, & Piliavin, 1969; Sole, Marton, & Hornstein, 1975;
Platow et al., 1999; Levine, Prosser, Evans, & Reicher,
2005; cf. Wagner, Hornstein, & Holloway, 1982) and in the
laboratory (Dovidio et al., 1997). Moreover, this overall
in-group helping effect is moderated by the strength of
people’s identification with their group (O’Reilly &
Chatman, 1986; Simon, Stürmer, & Steffens, 2000; Levine
& Thompson, 2004), and may be mediated by perceptions
of psychological self-other interchangeability (Cialdini,
Brown, Lewis, Luce, & Neuberg, 1997; Manner et al.,
2002), the outcome of a shared self-categorization (Turner,
Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987). Taken together,
this research has led to the continued call for a role of group
membership in theoretical analyses of the production
of pro-social behaviours (Dovidio, Piliavin, Gaertner,
Schroeder, & Clark, 1991; Nadler, 2002; Rosenberg &
Treviño, 2003).
Having noted this, however, there are times when
in-group helping is not greater or more likely than out-
group helping (Hornstein, Masor, Sole, & Heilman, 1971);
indeed, the pattern sometimes reverses. Importantly, such
qualifications often derive from other well-delineated group
processes (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner et al., 1987). For
example, intergroup helping is increased when a common
group membership is made salient, either through context-
relevant visual cues (i.e. clothing; Nier et al., 2001) or
through common fate (Batson et al., 1979; Flippen, Horn-
stein, Siegal, & Weitzman, 1996). In the absence of a salient
common group membership, levels of intergroup helping
have been observed to vary as a function of the nature of the
intergroup status relationships. In Piliavin et al.’s (1969)
study, for example, the prominence of relative in-group
over out-group helping actually occurred only among white
Correspondence: Michael Platow, School of Psychology, The
Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia.
Email: michael.platow@anu.edu.au
Received 3 November 2006; accepted 12 June 2007.
© 2007 The Authors
© 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd with the Asian Association of Social Psychology and the Japanese Group Dynamics Association
Asian Journal of Social Psychology (2007), 10, 258–264 DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-839X.2007.00234.x
(higher status group), but not black bystanders (lower status
group). And Dovidio and Gaertner (1981) found that white
participants provided more help to blacks than whites
when blacks were in subordinate, but not superior, status
positions.
On the role of intergroup relations
The empirical literature thus points to a more nuanced view
of intergroup helping, and has led to the recent recognition
of a need to expand theory and research to identify more
clearly the variables affecting levels of both in-group and
out-group help. Two recent analyses have begun this
process by focusing on the nature of the relations between
groups as well as the nature of the help given. First, Jackson
and Esses (2000) argued from a realistic intergroup conflict
perspective (Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood, & Sherif, 1961;
Campbell, 1965), and proposed that members of materially
high status groups would be willing to provide help to
lower status groups as long as the lower status groups were
not threatening the material advantage of the high status
group. This was hypothesized to be particularly true with
the offering of help that would empower the lower status
groups rather than simply sustain them in their current
status positions; whereas the former type of help allows
group members ultimately to help themselves (e.g. educa-
tion), the latter is aid that that is not directed at promoting
independence (e.g. social welfare payments). Confirming
their hypothesis, Jackson and Esses (2000) found that
members of a high status group supported providing
empowerment help to members of a lower status out-group
when that out-group did not threaten the material high
status of the in-group; in the presence of a potential mate-
rial challenge from the out-group, however, this support for
out-group empowerment help diminished.
Subsequently arguing from a social identity theory per-
spective (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), Nadler (2002; Nadler &
Halabi, 2006) made a nearly identical argument to Jackson
and Esses (2000), but recognized that status differences
between groups are neither solely nor always based on
material differences. Intergroup status differences, within
social identity theory, reflect relative rank-orderings along
any valued prestige dimension, including relative task
performance (Turner & Brown, 1978), abilities (Ellemers,
van Knippenberg, de Vries, & Wilke, 1988), opportunities
(Platow, Byrne, & Ryan, 2005), as well as economic advan-
tage (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Moreover, any threat, material
or not, by the out-group to the status of the in-group can be
grounds for withholding empowerment help (in Nadler’s
words, autonomous help) within Nadler’s social identity
theory analysis of helping.
This withholding of empowerment help under social
identity threat stems from the role of in-group status in
shaping self-definition and buttressing self-worth (Platow
et al., 2005). In outlining his arguments, Nadler (2002),
adopted the social identity assumption that, under specific
circumstances (Bettencourt, Dorr, Charlton, & Hume,
2001), group members will pursue behavioural strategies
that maximize the likelihood of retaining their group’s
relatively high status, especially when it is under threat.
Again, as outlined within social identity theory, social
identity threat is expected to occur in contexts of inter-
group status instability, when there is a possibility
of status-hierarchy change (Turner & Brown, 1978;
Ellemers, van Knippenberg, & Wilke, 1990). In terms of
helping, this translates into decreased support for empow-
erment help to a lower status out-group in contexts in
which the out-group is threatening the relatively high
status of the in-group. Such withholding of out-group
empowerment help represents a form of social identity
management.
The current research
In the current research, we further examine the theoretical
arguments outlined by Jackson and Esses (2000) and
Nadler (2002), but extend the research of the former by
explicitly comparing levels of support for out-group help
with levels of support for in-group help. Jackson and Esses
measured only support for out-group help, so their research
cannot comment on the relative levels of help provided to
in-group and out-group members and, hence, cannot be
fully understood within the broader context of empirical
work conducted in the context of intergroup helping.
However, the logic of their and Nadler’s analyses provides
a basis for making intergroup predictions. Specifically,
among members of a high status group, support for empow-
erment help should be greater for in-group members than
for members of a lower-status out-group. However, this
difference should be more pronounced under conditions in
which relative in-group status is being challenged by the
lower-status out-group.
In creating an experimental context to examine this pre-
diction, we drew upon social identity theory principles of
relative intergroup status and the stability of this status
difference (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) by informing partici-
pants (via a hypothetical scenario) of their own group’s
relative economic advantage over another’s. To manipulate
intergroup status stability and instability, we simply in-
formed participants that their group’s relative economic
advantage had been stable across time, or had been decreas-
ing over time. Importantly, however, the in-group absolute
economic position remained constant; this was clearly not a
zero-sum situation, and was thus not one of intergroup
competition.
Intergroup helping 259
© 2007 The Authors
© 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd with the Asian Association of Social Psychology and the Japanese Group Dynamics Association
Methods
Participants and design
A total of 117 Australian-born university students (median
age, 20 years) were randomly assigned to one condition
of a 2 (intergroup status stability: stable vs unstable) ¥2
(group membership of recipient of help: in-group vs
out-group) between-participants factorial design. The
out-group was always lower status than the in-group. In
manipulating the intergroup status difference, we followed
Jackson and Esses (2000), and used an intergroup context
in which the relatively high-status in-group comprised
persons born in the country in which the research was
conducted, in this case, Australia; the relatively low-status
out-group was that of immigrants. Although the data we
provided were fictitious, this manipulation allowed us to
provide relatively plausible feedback about the in-group’s
relatively favourable economic advantage (data from in the
year this study was conducted indicated that more immi-
grants than Australian-born residents worked in blue-collar
and manufacturing jobs, and fewer owned their own homes;
Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2004).
Materials
The experiment entailed completion of a questionnaire that
began with a false cover story that the research might
inform government policy. This was followed by the
manipulation of relative in-group status and the stability of
this status hierarchy. Specifically, participants were pre-
sented with false data (as though it were real) describing
trends in household incomes among Australian-born citi-
zens and immigrants in the local Australian Capital
Territory (where the research was conducted); it stated that
‘5000 people...havebeen unemployed a year or more’,
19% of whom were ‘immigrants and the other 81% [were]
Australian-born citizens’. These values were chosen to be
broadly proportional to the actual percentage of recent
immigrants compared to non-immigrants within Australia
as a whole; at the time of the experiment, approximately
14% of the Australian population could be identified as
recent immigrants, so that the 19% used in this experiment
actually emphasized the in-group’s (i.e. Australian-born
residents) relatively high status.
In the stable intergroup condition, the text continued:
The average household income for immigrants is approxi-
mately $15 000 less than the average household income of
Australian-born citizens. The gap between the average
household income for immigrants and Australian-born
citizens has been stable for the past four decades.
In the unstable intergroup condition, the text read:
The average household income for immigrants is approxi-
mately equal to the average household income of Australian-
born citizens. The gap between the average household
incomes for immigrants and Australian-born incomes has
been closing over the past four decades.
Following the above text in each condition, a bar chart
demonstrated the (supposedly real) difference in incomes
between the two groups over a four-decade period.Whereas
the chart in each condition began with the same intergroup
difference, this difference was maintained in the stable con-
dition, but it was systematically reduced in the unstable
condition. Again, as we noted earlier, the in-group’s abso-
lute levels were presented as being maintained across years,
with the out-group’s absolute levels increasing.
On the following page, three types of assistance were
presented, and participants were asked to indicate their
support for each type for either in-group or out-group
members, as the manipulation of the recipient of helping
behaviour. Specifically, the text read:
We are asking people’s opinions about the types of assis-
tance they would support for helping long-term unemployed
Australian-born citizens [immigrants]...Please rate the
following types of assistance based on how much you
endorse them for Australian-born citizens [immigrants].
In choosing forms of empowerment for the current study,
we were driven by the need to match the help to local
conditions as well as to the specific context described in the
scenario. Thus, rather than using Jackson and Esses’s
(2000) items, we conducted a pilot test of new items
(N=20). Based on the results of this test, empowerment
help was operationalized with the following three forms
of assistance: ‘Providing placements at universities with
financial scholarships’, ‘Providing apprenticeships’, and
‘Provide placement at TAFEs’ (Australian tertiary techni-
cal schools). Mean ratings of perceived empowerment
(1 =‘definitely not a form of empowerment’; 7 =‘defi-
nitely a form of empowerment’) were all statistically sig-
nificantly greater (Ms=5.89, 5.86, 5.68, respectively) than
the midpoint of the scale (i.e. 4), all ps<0.001.
In the main study, each participant responded to each of
these statements on a seven-point scale (1 =‘strongly
oppose’; 7 =‘strongly support’). Following these state-
ments, participants were asked to rate each type of assis-
tance on its degree of empowerment using the same scale as
the pilot study; this simply served to confirm our pilot
results. Participants then indicated their level of agreement
with two questions about their perceptions of the nature
of the intergroup relations (1 =‘strongly disagree’;
7=‘strongly agree’). The first served as an intergroup
status stability manipulation check, stating, ‘Given the
information on the first page, I believe that it is likely that
immigrants will obtain an equal or higher average income
than Australian-born citizens in the future’. The second
260 Emily Cunningham and Michael J. Platow
© 2007 The Authors
© 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd with the Asian Association of Social Psychology and the Japanese Group Dynamics Association
measured perceptions of real material intergroup conflict,
stating, ‘Given the information on the first page, I believe
that immigrants to Australia pose an economic threat to
other Australian citizens’.
These questions were followed with a memory-based,
multiple-choice question that served as a manipulation
check for the group membership of the recipients for whom
participants were asked to support (or not) help; choice-
options were: (i) ‘Australian-born citizens’; (ii) ‘immi-
grants’; and (iii) ‘all Australians’. Finally, questions asking
participants to indicate their age and whether or not they
were born in Australia were presented.
Procedure
Participants were approached on a university campus by the
experimenter and asked if they would be willing to com-
plete a questionnaire. They were told that the questionnaire
was about people’s attitudes toward unemployment. No
time limit was given, but completion time ranged from 5 to
15 min. After the questionnaire was completed, participants
were provided with a written debriefing statement.
Results
Manipulation checks
Memory for the group membership of the recipient of
help. Analyses of responses to the three-option memory
manipulation check for the group membership of the recipi-
ent indicated that 32.79% of participants in the in-group
helping condition and 28.57% of participants in the out-
group helping condition responded incorrectly by indicat-
ing that the help described in the scenario was for the
common group ‘all Australians’. Separate analyses remov-
ing all of these participants did not affect the pattern of
significant and non-significant effects; we thus retained
these participants in our analyses as conservative tests of
our hypotheses. However, two participants in the in-group
help condition indicated that the help was to be provided to
out-group members; these two participants were deleted
from subsequent analyses. The final sample size for the
analyses below was, thus, 115.
Intergroup status stability manipulation check. A 2 (inter-
group status stability) ¥2 (group membership of recipient
of help) between-participants analysis of variance (anova)
was conducted on the single item measuring the percep-
tions that ‘immigrants [would] obtain equal or higher
average income than Australian-born citizens in the future’.
The only statistically significant effect was the main effect
for intergroup status stability, F1, 111 =28.80, p<0.001,
partial h2=0.21. Participants under unstable intergroup
conditions agreed more strongly with this statement
(M=4.49, SEM =0.19) than participants under stable
intergroup conditions conditions (M=3.05, SEM =0.19).
Perceptions of real material intergroup conflict. A2¥2
between-participants anova was conducted on the single
item measuring belief that ‘immigrants pose an economic
threat to other Australian citizens’. The main effects for
in-group status stability (F1,111 =2.37, p=0.13) and group
membership of recipient of help (F1,111 =0.59, p=0.44), as
well as the interaction (F1,111 =2.56, p=0.11) were all sta-
tistically non-significant. The grand mean (M=2.53,
SEM =0.16), however, was statistically significantly lower
than indifference (i.e. scale midpoint of 4), t114 =-9.09,
p<0.001. This pattern of significant and non-significant
findings clearly has implications for interpretations of
helping based upon realistic intergroup conflict theory.
Empowerment items. The ratings of relative empowerment
of the three empowerment helping items were highly inter-
correlated (a=0.90); we thus calculated a mean of these
items for each participant. As expected, ratings of relative
empowerment (M=5.91, SEM =0.11) were significantly
greater than indifference (i.e. scale midpoint of 4),
t114 =17.13, p<0.001. Moreover, responses on these mean
ratings did not statistically significantly vary as a function
of our independent variables.
Support for empowerment help
A mean of the three items measuring support for empow-
erment help (a=0.83) was calculated for each participant
and analyzed in a 2 ¥2 between-participants anova.A
statistically significant main effect occurred for the group
membership of the recipient of help, F1,111 =12.31,
p<0.001, partial h2=0.10. Participants more strongly
supported providing empowerment help to in-group
members (M=5.96, SEM =0.14) than out-group members
(M=5.26, SEM =0.14). This was qualified, however, by a
statistically significant interaction, F1,111 =9.05, p <0.01,
partial h2=0.08. As can be seen in Figure 1, participants
indicated relatively strong support for empowerment help
for both in-group members and out-group members under
stable intergroup status conditions. However, under
unstable intergroup status conditions, support for in-group
empowerment help was significantly greater than support
for out-group empowerment help, p<0.05 with a Bonfer-
roni correction. The main effect for intergroup status
stability was not statistically significant, F1,111 =0.96.
Discussion
The goal of the current research was to observe
whether -and, if so, in what manner -differences would
Intergroup helping 261
© 2007 The Authors
© 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd with the Asian Association of Social Psychology and the Japanese Group Dynamics Association
occur in levels of support for empowerment help to group
members of a high status in-group and a lower status out-
group under conditions of stable and unstable intergroup
status relations. The conjunction of three empirical and
theoretical observations led us to this goal. First, we
observed a strong empirical pattern of more readily and
more greatly afforded help toward in-group than out-group
members. Second, we noted variability in this empirical
pattern along theoretically relevant dimensions, including
intergroup status differences. And third, we noted two
recent theoretical and empirical efforts (Jackson and Esses,
2000; Nadler, 2002) providing a more nuanced understand-
ing of the conditions under which differences in in-group
and out-group help would occur.
Our prediction derived from these latter theoretical
efforts, and received support in the current experiment.
Overall, participants provided greater support for empow-
erment help to in-group over out-group members. However,
this occurred only under unstable, high in-group status con-
ditions. Under conditions of high in-group status stability,
participants’ support for out-group empowerment assis-
tance was (nearly) as strong as it was for the in-group; when
the in-group’s relatively high status was not potentially
under threat, the frequently observed greater levels of help
for in-group over out-group members were absent.
We thus have evidence in support of both the realistic
intergroup conflict model and the social identity model of
intergroup helping (Jackson and Esses, 2000; Nadler,
2002), although our research does not allow us to differen-
tiate fully between the processes outlined in these two
models. Nevertheless, three features of the experiment lead
us to have less confidence in the realistic intergroup conflict
model: (i) perceptions of perceived economic threat were
not statistically significantly related to our independent
variables, as noted earlier; (ii) these same perceptions were,
on average, statistically significantly lower than indiffer-
ence, indicating that participants as least somewhat dis-
agreed that a threat was posed; and (iii) the nature of our
manipulations were such that, within our intergroup status
instability condition, participants observed enhancement of
joint gain in the absence of both a zero-sum and absolute
in-group loss. At the same time, however, we note that
Jackson and Esses (2000) used several items specifically
measuring beliefs about the zero-sum nature of the inter-
group interdependence, providing a more direct measure
of perceived intergroup competition. Moreover, as a more
direct test of potential social identity processes, more
precise measures of perceived status threat would allow for
further clarity of the underlying process.
We also recognize that a potential criticism of our
methods can be put with regards to the unstable intergroup
status condition. Here, we described the gap between the
two groups as closing over the past four decades. This could
suggest that the out-group was no longer in need of help, as
its economic status was nearly that of the in-group. We
believe this would have been a confounding variable if we
observed no differences in helping in the unstable status
condition; in this manner, it could have been argued that
participants were distributing their help equitably between
two equally needy groups. However, we did observe such
differences, and ones that were in line with theoretical
analyses. Thus, in spite of being faced with potentially
equally needy groups in the unstable intergroup status con-
dition, participants provided stronger support for empow-
erment help to in-group members than to out-group
members. In fact, there was a slight (but statistically non-
significant) increase in support for empowerment help to
in-group members from the stable to the unstable inter-
group status condition; by contrast, there was a statistically
significant decrease in help support to out-group members
from the stable to the unstable intergroup condition,
p<0.05. An explanation of these findings based on the
potential for the out-group to no longer need the help is
simply implausible, if only because the in-group was
equally as un-needy. We see this as providing even stronger
support for the theoretical arguments.
Overall, the current experiment represents an advance in
the literature. It replicated and extended one of the few
empirical demonstrations of variability in help provided to
lower status groups as a function of the type of help and the
stability of the status hierarchy. The current data paint a
picture of helping behaviour that is contingent, at least in
part, on the nature of intergroup relations between the
helper and the recipient. Each variable currently studied
plays a key role in extant theories of intergroup relations.
Thus, although more nuanced, the pattern of group-based
helping ought to be understood to operate along the same
principles as other group-based behaviours. Our data
6.16
5.76
5.66
4.86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
elbatsnUelbatS
Stabilit
y
of inter
g
roup status hierarch
y
Support for empowerment help
Figure 1 Interaction between intergroup status stabil-
ity and help-recipient group-membership for support
for empowerment help. –––, in-group recipients; -----,
out-group recipients.
262 Emily Cunningham and Michael J. Platow
© 2007 The Authors
© 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd with the Asian Association of Social Psychology and the Japanese Group Dynamics Association
confirm that group processes are involved in the production
of helping behaviour and, yet, some form of unwavering
bias to help only in-group members does not accurately
reflect what people do.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Craig McGarty for his
critical comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.
References
Australian Bureau of Statistics. 4102.0 Australian Social Trends,
2004. [Cited 11 June, 2007.] Available from http://
www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/llprimarymainfeatures/
48CCD56CFC4A88FCA25703B007748FA?opendocument
Batson, C. D., Pate, S., Lawless, H., Sparkman, P., Lambers, S. &
Worman, B. (1979). Helping under conditions of common
threat: Increased ‘we-feeling’ or ensuring reciprocity. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 42, 410–414.
Bettencourt, B. A., Dorr, N., Charlton, K. & Hume, D. L. (2001).
Status differences and in-group bias: A meta-analytic examina-
tion of the effects of status stability, status legitimacy, and group
permeability. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 520–542.
Campbell, D. T. (1965). Ethnocentric and other altruistic motives.
In: D. Levine, ed. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation,
pp. 283–311. Lincoln, IL: University of Nebraska Press.
Cialdini, R. B., Brown, S. L., Lewis, B. P., Luce, C. & Neuberg,
S. L. (1997). Reinterpreting the empathy-altruism relationship:
When one into one equals oneness. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 73, 481–494.
Dovidio, J. F. & Gaertner, S. L. (1981). The effects of race, status,
and ability on helping behaviour. Social Psychology Quarterly,
44, 192–203.
Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Validzic, A., Motako, K., Johnson,
B. & Frazier, S. (1997). Extending the benefits of recategori-
zation: Evaluations, self-disclosure, and helping. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 401–420.
Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., Gaertner, S. L., Schroeder, D. A. &
Clark, R. D. III. (1991). The Arousal: Cost-Reward model and
the process of intervention: A review of the evidence. In: M. S.
Clark, ed. Review of Personality and Social Psychology: Proso-
cial Behaviour, Vol. 12,pp. 86–118. Newbury Park: Sage.
Ellemers, N., van Knippenberg, A. & Wilke, H. (1990). The
influence of permeability of group boundaries and stability of
group status on strategies of individual mobility and social
change. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 233–246.
Ellemers, N., van Knippenberg, A., de Vries, N. & Wilke, H.
(1988). Social identification and permeability of group bound-
aries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 497–513.
Flippen, A. R., Hornstein, H. A., Siegal, W. E. & Weitzman, E. A.
(1996). A comparison of similarity and interdependence as
triggers for in-group formation. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 22, 882–893.
Hornstein, H. A., Masor, H. N., Sole, K. & Heilman, M. (1971).
Effects of sentiment and completion of a helping act on
observer helping: A case for socially mediated Zeigarnik
effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17, 107–
112.
Jackson, L. M. & Esses, V. M. (2000). Effects of perceived eco-
nomic competition on people’s willingness to help empower
immigrants. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 3,
419–435.
Levine, M., Cassidy, C., Brazier, G. & Reicher, S. (2002). Self-
categorization and bystander non-intervention: Two experimen-
tal studies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 1452–
1463.
Levine, M., Prosser, A., Evans, D. & Reicher, S. (2005). Identity
and emergency intervention: How social group membership
and inclusiveness of group boundaries shape helping behaviour.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 443–453.
Levine, M. & Thompson, K. (2004). Identity, place, and bystander
intervention: Social categories and helping after natural disas-
ters. Journal of Social Psychology, 144, 229–245.
Manner, J. K., Luce, C. L., Neuberg, S. L., Cialdini, R. B., Brown,
S. & Sagarin, B. J. (2002). The effects of perspective taking
on motivations for helping: Still no evidence for altruism.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1601–
1610.
Nadler, A. (2002). Inter-group helping relations as power rela-
tions: Maintaining or challenging social dominance between
groups through helping. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 487–
502.
Nadler, A., & Halabi, S. (2006). Intergroup helping as status
relations: Effects of status stability, identification, and type of
help on receptivity to high-status group’s help. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 91–110.
Nier, J. A., Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Banker, B. S., Ward, C.
M. & Rust, M. C. (2001). Changing interracial evaluations and
behaviour: The effects of a common group identity. Group
Processes and Intergroup Relations, 4, 299–316.
O’Reilly, C. III. & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commit-
ment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance,
identification, and internalization on prosocial behaviour.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492–499.
Piliavin, I. M., Rodin, J. & Piliavin, J. A. (1969). Good samari-
tanism: An underground phenomenon? Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 13, 289–299.
Platow, M. J., Byrne, L. & Ryan, M. K. (2005). Experimentally
manipulated high in-group status can buffer personal self-
esteem against discrimination. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 35, 599–608.
Platow, M. J., Durante, M., Williams, N., et al. (1999). The con-
tribution of sport fan social identity to the production of proso-
cial behaviour. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and
Practice, 3, 161–169.
Rosenberg, A. S. & Treviño, L. K. (2003). A proposed model of
between-group helping: An identity-based approach. Journal of
Managerial Issues, 15, 154–174.
Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R. & Sherif, C.
(1961). Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation: The Robber’s
Cave Experiment. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Simon, B., Stürmer, S. & Steffens, K. (2000). Helping individuals
or group members? The role of individual and collective
Intergroup helping 263
© 2007 The Authors
© 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd with the Asian Association of Social Psychology and the Japanese Group Dynamics Association
identification in AIDS volunteerism. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 26, 497–506.
Sole, K., Marton, J. & Hornstein, H. A. (1975). Opinion similarity
and helping: Three filed experiments investigating the bases of
promotive tension. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
11, 1–13.
Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of inter-
group conflict. In: W. G. Austin & S. Worchel, eds. The Social
Psychology of Intergroup Relations, pp. 33–47. Monterey, CA:
Brooks/Cole.
Turner, J. C., & Brown, R. J. (1978). Social status, cognitive
alternatives, and intergroup relations. In: H. Tajfel, ed. Differ-
entiation Between Social Groups, pp. 201–234. London: Aca-
demic Press.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D. &
Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the Social Group.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Wagner, S., Hornstein, H. A. & Holloway, S. (1982). Willingness
to help a stranger: The effects of social context and opinion
similarity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 12, 429–443.
264 Emily Cunningham and Michael J. Platow
© 2007 The Authors
© 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd with the Asian Association of Social Psychology and the Japanese Group Dynamics Association
