Crab mentality explained

Crab mentality, also known as crab theory,[1] [2] crabs in a bucket mentality, or the crab-bucket effect, is a way of thinking usually described by the phrase "if I can't have it, neither can you".[3]

The metaphor is derived from anecdotal claims about the behavior of crabs contained in a open bucket: if a crab starts to climb out,[4] it will be pulled back in by the others, ensuring the group's collective demise.[5] [6] [7]

The analogous theory in human behavior is that members of a group will attempt to reduce the self-confidence of any member who achieves success beyond others, out of envy, jealousy, resentment, spite, conspiracy, or competitive feelings, in order to halt their progress.[8] [9] [10] [11]

Self-evaluation maintenance theory

See main article: Self-evaluation maintenance theory. At an emotional level, crab mentality can stem from a deep-seated human need for self-esteem and social comparison.[12] Tesser's self-evaluation maintenance theory (SEM) suggests that individuals engage in self-evaluation not only through introspection but also through comparison with others, especially those within their close social circles. When someone close to us excels in areas we value, we might feel threatened and act in ways that downplay their achievements. This mechanism can partly explain why individuals may attempt to pull down those who achieve more than themselves, as a way to protect their own self-esteem and social standing. For instance, consider two friends who are passionate about painting and regularly attend art classes together. They both take pride in their artistic abilities, but when one friend's artwork is selected for a prestigious local exhibition, the other might experience feelings of envy and a threat to their self-esteem. This friend might react by defaming the significance of the exhibition itself, suggesting that true artistic merit isn't captured by such events, thereby maintaining their self-esteem while "pulling back" his friend like crabs in a bucket. Emotions such as envy may be generated when individuals feel threatened during self-evaluation.[13] This can lead to a desire to diminish the well-being of others, particularly when their success highlights our own failures or inadequacies.[14]

Relative deprivation theory

See main article: Relative deprivation. Relative deprivation theory proposes that feelings of dissatisfaction and injustice arise when people compare their situation unfavorably with others' situations.[15] This sense of inequality, rooted in subjective perceptions rather than objective measures, can deeply influence social behavior,[16] including the phenomenon of crab mentality. When individuals see their peers achieving success or receiving the recognition they feel is undeserved or unattainable for themselves, it can trigger actions aimed at undermining these peers' accomplishments.[17] The concept emerged from a study of American soldiers by Stouffer. Soldiers in units with more promotions were paradoxically less satisfied, feeling left out if not promoted themselves, despite better odds of advancement.[18] This reflects how relative deprivation fuels dissatisfaction by comparing one's situation to others. By "dragging" others down to a similar level, individuals might feel a sense of satisfaction. Thus, crab mentality can be viewed as a response to perceived social inequality, where pulling others down becomes a strategy to cope with feelings of inadequacy or injustice.

Zero-sum bias

See main article: Zero-sum thinking. Zero-sum bias, where individuals perceive that they can only gain at the expense of others, may contribute to crab mentality.[19] This bias is rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of success and resource distribution, leading to the incorrect belief that success and resources are limited and one person's gain is necessarily another's loss. Such a worldview fosters competitive rather than collaborative social interactions, encouraging behaviors that aim at hindering others' achievements to protect one's perceived share of limited resources,[20] like crabs in a bucket. In Daniel V. Meegan's study, researchers found that students expected lower grades for peers after seeing many high grades already awarded, despite being in a system where high grades are unlimited. This illustrates how people often view success as a limited resource. Thus, when they see their peers successfully "climbing out of the bucket", they may try to hinder their progress to ensure their own chances of success remain unchanged.

It's crucial to differentiate crab mentality from strategic competition, where actions are calculated for self-interest and personal gain.[21] People's rational behaviors are aimed directly at benefiting themselves. Since it is driven by cognitive biases and emotions, crab mentality is often a reactive, non-rational behavior that seeks to level the playing field by pulling others down, even though there are no direct benefits to the individual.

Further reading

Notes and References

  1. Web site: Mae Lentz. Ella. 2006. The Crab Theory Revisited. YouTube. https://web.archive.org/web/20201127232750/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Iy-g3fXNWA&gl=US&hl=en . 2020-11-27 . dead. November 4, 2020.
  2. Web site: Henry . Elizabeth . FAQ: Crab Theory . LibGuides .
  3. Book: L. Douglas Wilder. Son of Virginia: A Life in America's Political Arena. October 1, 2015. Lyons Press. 978-1-4930-1952-6. 185. Douglas Wilder.
  4. Book: Low Robin Boon Peng. Good Intentions Are Not Enough: Why We Fail At Helping Others. 2016. World Scientific. 978-981-320-059-3. 104.
  5. News: Capturing Indian 'Crab' Behaviour. Sudipta Sarangi. The Hindu. April 1, 2013. December 1, 2015.
  6. Miller . Carliss D. . A Phenomenological Analysis of the Crabs in the Barrel Syndrome . Academy of Management Proceedings . January 2015 . 2015 . 1 . 13710 . 10.5465/AMBPP.2015.13710abstract .
  7. PhD . en . Adams . Frank Patrick . December 2019 . Does the Crab Theory Hold Water? Investigating Intragroup Discriminatory Attitudes within the Deaf Community . Gallaudet University . 1226710162 . 2020-07-28 . 2020-10-17 . https://web.archive.org/web/20201017201955/http://frankpadams.com/upload/97152/documents/4F2720A3AF8D3329.pdf . dead .
  8. Book: Manuel B. Dy. Values in Philippine Culture and Education. March 3, 1994. Council for Research in Values and Philosophy. 978-1-56518-041-3. 40.
  9. Book: Herbert A. Leibowitz. Parnassus: Twenty Years of Poetry in Review. December 31, 1994. University of Michigan Press. 978-0-472-06577-6. 262.
  10. News: Where We Stand: The Crab Bucket Syndrome. Albert Shanker. The New York Times. June 19, 1994. December 1, 2015. Albert Shanker. February 20, 2020. https://web.archive.org/web/20200220132734/http://source.nysut.org/weblink7/DocView.aspx?id=1012. dead.
  11. Book: David, E. J. R.. Brown Skin, White Minds: Filipino / American Postcolonial Psychology. 2013. Information Age Publishing. 978-1-62396-209-8. Charlotte, NC. 119.
  12. Web site: PhD . Jerry Peres de Tagle . rciriacruz . 2021-01-07 . Crab mentality – where does it come from? . 2024-03-19 . Inquirer.net USA . en.
  13. Xiang . Yanhui . Zhao . Jiaxu . Li . Qingyin . Zhang . Wenrui . Dong . Xia . Zhao . Jingjing . 2019 . Effect of Core Self-Evaluation on Mental Health Symptoms Among Chinese College Students: The Mediating Roles of Benign and Malicious Envy . Psychiatric Annals . en . 49 . 6 . 277–284 . 10.3928/00485713-20190508-01 . 0048-5713.
  14. Smith . Richard H. . Kim . Sung Hee . 2007 . Comprehending envy. . Psychological Bulletin . en . 133 . 1 . 46–64 . 10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.46 . 17201570 . 1939-1455.
  15. Walker . Iain . Pettigrew . Thomas F. . 1984 . Relative deprivation theory: An overview and conceptual critique . British Journal of Social Psychology . en . 23 . 4 . 301–310 . 10.1111/j.2044-8309.1984.tb00645.x . 0144-6665.
  16. Webber . Craig . 2007 . Revaluating relative deprivation theory . Theoretical Criminology . en . 11 . 1 . 97–120 . 10.1177/1362480607072737 . 1362-4806.
  17. Festinger . Leon . 1954 . A Theory of Social Comparison Processes . Human Relations . en . 7 . 2 . 117–140 . 10.1177/001872675400700202 . 0018-7267.
  18. Web site: Samuel A. Stouffer and The American Soldier (Ryan J., 2010) PDF Sociology Social Science . 2024-03-19 . Scribd . en.
  19. Meegan . Daniel V. . 2010 . Zero-Sum Bias: Perceived Competition Despite Unlimited Resources . Frontiers in Psychology . 1 . 191 . 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00191 . free . 1664-1078 . 3153800 . 21833251.
  20. Wilkins . Clara L. . Wellman . Joseph D. . Babbitt . Laura G. . Toosi . Negin R. . Schad . Katherine D. . 2015 . You can win but I can't lose: Bias against high-status groups increases their zero-sum beliefs about discrimination . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology . 57 . 1–14 . 10.1016/j.jesp.2014.10.008 . 0022-1031.
  21. Miller . Dale T. . 1999 . The norm of self-interest. . American Psychologist . en . 54 . 12 . 1053–1060 . 10.1037/0003-066X.54.12.1053 . 15332526 . 1935-990X.

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Crab mentality".

Except where otherwise indicated, Everything.Explained.Today is © Copyright 2009-2024, A B Cryer, All Rights Reserved. Cookie policy.