Introduction
While extensive research demonstrates that individuals prefer their own groups when distributing positive stimuli such as resources or rewards, a pattern consistent with Social Identity Theory, far less is known about behaviors related to allocating negative stimuli.
Purpose
This research examined the intergroup allocation of illegitimate tasks (i.e., tasks that are either unreasonable or unnecessary and which can cause psychological or physiological harm to those carrying them out) to German and Turkish doctors, as well as the individual differences that influence these decisions.
Method and Results
Across two experimental studies using the vignette approach under free-choice (Study 1; N = 98) and forced-choice (Study 2; N = 239) conditions, results indicated that native professionals were more frequently allocated illegitimate tasks, with conscientiousness and prejudice identified as key personal factors associated with allocation preference under forced conditions.
Conclusions
The results highlight the asymmetric effects of stimulus valence on intergroup allocation, and further shed light on the complexity of ingroup favoritism, which, under conditions of negative valence, may reflect considerations about competence and reputation.