Perceiver Demographics Relevant to
Headcounts and equal opportunity 255
WHY EVEN MUNDANE SOCIAL CATEGORIES MATTER
The social categorization literature Turner et al., 1987; McGarty, 1999 has established that people attach emotional value to their social cat-
egory memberships Abrams and Hogg, 1988, 1999. In fact, more recent research suggests that it is especially dii cult for groups from dif erent
social categories, say an ‘American’ company versus a ‘French’ company, to maximize joint gains Garcia et al., 2005. For instance, Americans
would rather have less-lucrative equal outcomes for example, 500 – Americans 500 – French than more-lucrative but disadvantageously
unequal outcomes where the French earn more from a joint venture than themselves for example, 600 – Americans 800 – French. On the other
hand, if both companies were from the same social category that is, Americans, then people would be willing to maximize joint gains, even
if it means they will proi t less than the other company. Thus, the impli- cation is that group members will experience a greater pain of upward
social comparison when they are getting paid less than another group in inter-category situations that is, Americans versus French than in intra-
category situations that is, Americans versus Americans.
While actual group members become sensitive to inequalities in inter- category situations, third parties also become more sensitive to inequali-
ties in inter-category situations than intra-category ones Beggan et al., 1991; Garcia and Miller, 2007. Although third parties do not experience
the same pain of upward social comparison as actual group members do, Garcia and Miller show that third parties can certainly recognize
an af ective disparity – the ‘hedonic gap’ – that would arise between the winning and losing sides of an inter-category situation. Garcia and Miller
hypothesize that third parties will consequently become more averse to using winner-take-all solutions to resolve inter-category disputes than
intra-category ones, even when such winner-take-all outcomes are created by the fair toss of a coin see Elster, 1989, 1992; Blount, 1995; Bolton et
al., 2005.
To illustrate this point, Garcia and Miller conducted a series of decision- making studies about whether or not to resolve conl ict with winner-take-all
solutions. In one particular study, University of Michigan undergraduates were asked to read one of two conl ict situations. Participants in the intra-
category condition read the following:
The Class of 1994 is deciding where to host their class reunion. Six hundred alumni were asked to rank a list of seven possible hotels. As you can see below,
the alumni are divided on their i rst choice: half the alumni want the Marriott