Perceptions of relative group size and group status: Effects on intergroup discrimination in negative evaluations

The positive–negative asymmetry in social discrimination proposes a threshold for ingroup favouritism within the negative domain: in contrast to comparable studies dealing with in- and outgroup evaluations on positive attributes, ingroup favouritism does not occur when negative attributes are used. The present study focuses on two aspects of this threshold: it investigates processes, which may influence the absence of ingroup favouritism in the negative domain, and it tests ‘aggravating’ variables, which seem to be suficient to elicit ingroup favouritism even in the negative domain. Results show that ingroup favouritism occurred within the negative domain when several aggravating conditions were included, namely high salience of size- and status- similarity between groups and high ingroup identification. Furthermore, subjects under minimal conditions tended to overestimate relative size as well as relative status of their ingroup. The perception of group members to belong to a high status majority is interpreted as a sufficient condition counteracting tendencies towards ingroup favouritism within the negative domain.     

Social comparison and social identity: Some prospects for intergroup behaviour

Recent studies have reported that the variable of social categorization per se is sufficient for intergroup discrimination. This paper presents an explanation of these findings in terms of the operation of social comparison processes between groups based on the need for a positive ingroup identity. The relationship between perceived social identity and intergroup comparison is elaborated theoretically, and it is argued that social comparisons give rise to processes of mutual differentiation between groups which can be analyzed as a form of ‘social’ competition. Social competition is distinguished from realistic competition (conflict of group interests). New data is reported which strengthens this interpretation of the ‘minimal’ categorization studies. It is found that minimal intergroup discrimination takes place in the distribution of meaningless ‘points’ as well as monetary rewards and that social categorization per se does not lead to intergroup behaviour where the subjects can act directly in terms of ‘self’. Other studies on intergroup biases are reviewed to argue for the generality of social competition in intergroup situations.     

Minority report: Social identity,cognitions of rejection and intergroup anxiety predicting prejudice from one racially marginalized group towards another

The present study investigated the attitudes of one disadvantaged minority group in Australia, Asian Australians (N = 87), towards another more severely disadvantaged minority group, Aboriginal Australians. Asian Australian attitudes were compared to European Australian attitudes (N = 273). Cognitions of outgroup rejection, identification and intergroup anxiety were assessed in relation modern racism, desire for intergroup avoidance and support for a national apology. Both Asian and European participants who perceived Aboriginal Australians as rejecting were more likely to express intergroup anxiety. Anxiety mediated the relationship between cognitions of rejection and the dependent variables. Whilst there was a direct positive relationship between European Australian identification and prejudice, for Asian Australian participants, identification moderated the relationship between cognitions of rejection and the dependent variables. Highly identified Asian Australian participants were particularly sensitive to cognitions of rejection, which increased modern racism and avoidance and lowered political support. The pattern was reversed for low identifiers, who were more likely to endorse a national apology to Aboriginal Australians when they perceived Aboriginal Australians as rejecting. The role of perceived rejection in predicting prejudice and avoidance, and the moderating role of Asian Australian identification, are both discussed. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The ironic impact of intergroup apologies on intergroup attitudes: Understanding the role of perceived power for post‐apology outgroup attitudes

The present research investigates how intergroup apologies, defined as apologies between two groups, affect perceived remorse and outgroup attitudes (e.g., explicit and implicit), in the context of power asymmetries. We recruited participants from two countries that differ in perceived power: South Korea and the United States. Participants read a vignette describing a violent act committed by an outgroup member (Korean or American), with or without an intergroup apology. Participants answered questions assessing perceived remorse and explicit attitudes toward the outgroup, followed by the Implicit Association Test (Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998). Results revealed that Koreans perceived less remorse following an intergroup apology from the United States, compared to when they did not read an intergroup apology. Further, a mediated moderation analysis indicated that perceived remorse mediated the relationship between apology and explicit attitudes towards the United States. However, an analogous effect for implicit attitudes was only marginally significant. In contrast, among American participants, no effect of the apology on perceived remorse, explicit attitudes, or implicit attitudes and no evidence for a mediation was found. We discuss the implications of these effects on understanding the effectiveness of intergroup apologies between countries that differ in perceived power.     

Individual,social group and intergroup behaviour. Some conceptual remarks on the social identity theory

An investigation of the group concept proposed by Tqjfel and Turner shows that group formation and intergroup behaviour cannot be explained by the similarity of group members. Taking into account only similarity of elements leads to conceptual contaminations concerning group and class, group and collective, personal and social identity, and finally interpersonal and intergroup behaviour. It is claimed that only the consideration of group structure and the differentiation of partially individual and partially structural attributes of the group members results in a conceptually adequate theory of group formation and intergroup behaviour of its members.     

Social identity,group processes,and helping in emergencies

Using insights from a review of recent research on social identity approaches to helping, the Chapter sets out four key elements of a social identity approach to helping in emergencies: the salience of social identity, the boundaries of social identity, the contents of social identity, and the strategic interests of social identity. Evidence that illustrates the impact of social identity processes on group size and helping, which has traditionally focused on the inhibition of helping in the presence of others, is then reviewed. Finally, recent developments in the literature on intergroup emotions are considered, and their impact on a social identity approach to helping in emergencies is explored, highlighting the relatively neglected social identity relationship between bystanders and perpetrators. The review concludes by considering the current state of knowledge of a social identity approach to helping in emergencies, and identifies important questions that remain to be addressed.     

Comments on the motivational status of self-esteem in social identity and intergroup discrimination

The background and development of motivational hypotheses in social identity theory are examined, revealing two general motives for intergroup discrimination: a desire for cognitive coherence, or good structure; and a need for positive self-esteem. The latter (self-esteem hypothesis: SEH) has received most attention. Both the theoretical and empirical bases of the SEH are largely rooted in research using the minimal group paradigm. However, it remains unclear whether self-esteem is to be considered primarily as a cause or an effect of discrimination. When real social groups are considered the SEH appears to provide only a partial explanation, and a variety of more or less powerful alternative social motives may underlie discriminatory behaviour. We explore some social-structural, individual and interpersonal limits to the SEH, and we call for an awareness of these motives and a re-examination of the good-structure thesis. The SEH, as it stands, provides only a partial contribution to our understanding of the relationship between social identity and discriminatory intergroup behaviour.     

Divided groups need leadership: A study of the effectiveness of collective identity,dual identity,and intergroup relational identity rhetoric

Reducing intergroup conflict is a significant leadership challenge. Leaders can alleviate conflict by promoting a collective, dual, or intergroup relational identity, but they should avoid provoking subgroup identity distinctiveness threat. Drawing on intergroup leadership theory, we conducted an experiment (N = 184) examining evaluations of a leader who promoted a dual, collective, or intergroup relational identity under low or high subgroup identity distinctiveness threat. We hypothesized that identity distinctiveness threat would improve evaluations of a leader promoting an intergroup relational identity, and worsen evaluations of a leader promoting a collective identity. Although a leader promoting a dual identity is typically preferred to one promoting a collective identity, we expected a leader promoting dual identity to receive worse evaluations than a leader promoting an intergroup relational identity. These hypotheses were supported, providing additional support for intergroup leadership theory and demonstrating the utility of employing intergroup relational identity rhetoric.     

Mergers and group status: the impact of high,low and equal group status on identification and satisfaction with a company merger,experienced controllability,group identity and group cohesion

Although mergers are seen as tools to enhance business in today's global marketplace, they have had a low success rate, possibly because the focus has been on financial and legal issues rather than on the human factors involved. In this respect, focusing on the social psychological variables, social identity theory can provide an explanation for the failure of most mergers. An experiment based on this theory involving mergers between two workgroups was conducted to investigate the effects of merger‐related status on participants' psychological responses to the mergers. Thirty‐six small groups were assigned to three different status groups (high, low and equal status groups) using the minimal group paradigm. Most negative responses to the merger—in terms of identification with the merger group, satisfaction with the merger, common in‐group identity, group cohesion and controllability—were given by the members of the low status groups. Contrary to expectations, status was not related to the performance of the groups. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

For better or for worse: the congruence of personal and group outcomes on targets' responses to discrimination

This paper reports two studies examining how (in‐) congruence between personal and group outcomes affects emotional well‐being, outcome attributions and procedural justice perceptions of individuals who are exposed to subtle discrimination. In Study 1 (N = 82) participants are either accepted or rejected in a (bogus) job application procedure, and either do or do not receive additional information indicating group‐level disadvantage. In Study 2 (N = 79), participants were either accepted or rejected, and received information indicating either advantage or disadvantage for members of their group. Results of both studies reveal that not only emotional well‐being and outcome attributions, but also procedural justice perceptions are primarily guided by personal outcomes. That is, being informed of group‐level disadvantage does not intensify but can instead alleviate negative affect resulting from personal rejection. Furthermore, group disadvantage is only seen as an indicator of an unjust procedure by individual group members who have personally suffered rejection. Results are discussed in relation to current insights on discrimination, tokenism and social justice. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

System-justifying beliefs and psychological well-being: the roles of group status and identity

This research examined the relationship between endorsing system-justifying beliefs and psychological well-being among individuals from ethnic groups that vary in social status. System-justifying beliefs are beliefs that imply that status in society is fair, deserved, and merited; examples of system-justifying beliefs in the United States include the beliefs that hard work pays off and that anyone can get ahead regardless of their group membership. We found that endorsing system-justifying beliefs was negatively related to psychological well-being among members of low-status groups who were highly identified with their group but positively related to well-being among members of low-status groups who were not highly identified with their ethnic group. In addition, we found that endorsing system-justifying beliefs was positively related to well-being among members of high-status groups, especially among members of high-status groups who were highly identified with the group.     

‘You can criticize because you care’: identity attachment,constructiveness, and the intergroup sensitivity effect

Criticism of one's group (e.g. nation, gender, or organization) is typically received in a less defensive way when it stems from another ingroup member than when it stems from an outsider (the intergroup sensitivity effect). We present two experiments demonstrating that this effect is driven not by group membership per se, but by the extent to which critics are perceived to be psychologically invested in the group they are criticizing. In Experiment 1 (N = 117), Australian participants were exposed to criticisms of their country from either other Australians (ingroup critics) or non‐Australians (outgroup critics). Furthermore, the ingroup critics were described as having either strong or weak attachment to their Australian identity. Ingroup critics were only received more positively than outgroup critics when they appeared to have a psychological investment in the group. In Experiment 2 (N = 96) we show how outgroup critics (Asian‐Australians) can overcome defensiveness among Anglo‐Australians by locating themselves within a shared, superordinate identity (Australian). Implications for communication within and between groups are discussed. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Group size,group status and trait valence as determinants of intergroup bias: Stereotyping in Finland and Sweden

The effects of group size, group status and trait valence (positive or negative stereotypes of in‐ and outgroup) on intergroup bias was studied in nation‐wide probability samples of majority and minority groups in Finland and Sweden, (N = 2479). Ethnolinguistic vitality was used as a proxy for status. It is argued that the specific history of real‐life intergroup relations has to be duly acknowledged when predicting main and interactive effects on intergroup bias in natural contexts. Supporting the predictions made, numerical group size showed a stable main effect; members of numerical minorities showed more bias than members of numerical majorities, regardless of trait valence. While status had no main effect, there was a significant interaction between status and size as well as between status and trait valence: intergroup bias was highest in the high status minority, and low status groups showed less bias than high status groups on negatively valenced traits. In fact, minority members showed the reverse of PNAE. In addition, majority members favoured the outgroup on negatively valenced traits, but favoured their ingroup on positively valenced traits. Different explanations for these results are discussed. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Matching the message to the process: the relative ordering of knowledge,attitudes, and practices in behavior change research

The authors empirically investigated the relative ordering of knowledge, attitudes, and practices in behavior change models and its relation to communicating health-related information. Considerable research has been conducted in the area of behavior change to identify and measure the presence of knowledge, attitudinal, and practice levels for many behaviors. The literature is reviewed. The authors' investigation consisted of interviewing 1680 men and women in Lima, Cusco, Huaraz, Puno, and Chimbote--5 large Peruvian cities--in 3 urban probability household surveys conducted in August 1994, January 1995, and January 1996. Six possible knowledge, attitude, and practice permutations are developed with regard to contraception in Peru. People may use contraceptive methods before they become fully knowledgeable about their chosen methods. In so doing, these users may become misinformed about contraceptive practice and become dissatisfied contraceptive users who discontinue contraceptive use. Media campaigns designed to inform the public can help produce a more satisfied and sustainable contraceptive user base. The informed choice approach can be the basis for effective communication strategies.     

Dual identities in intergroup contact: Group status and size moderate the generalization of positive attitude change

To explore the effects of various categorization strategies on intergroup bias within and beyond a contact situation, two experiments were conducted involving groups of different size and/or status that worked together on a cooperative task. Three categorization strategies (decategorization, recategorization, and dual identity) were compared, and bias was measured through symbolic reward allocations to people who were and were not actually encountered. In Experiment 1 (N = 129), we varied group size (minority or majority) and found that it affected bias within the contact situation—minority groups were more biased than majority groups. All of the categorization strategies limited bias and they did so equally well. Outside the contact situation, however, only the recategorization and dual identity strategies limited bias. In Experiment 2 (N = 156), we varied both group status (low or high) and group size. Both of these variables affected bias within the contact situation—high status groups were more biased than low status groups, and minority groups were again more biased than majority groups. Once again, all three categorization strategies limited bias and they did so equally well. Outside the contact situation, however, an interaction among the independent variables was observed. For minority groups, only the dual identity strategy limited bias, but none of the categorization strategies limited bias for majority groups.     

Group socialization and prejudice: the social transmission of intergroup attitudes and beliefs

In order to examine the social transmission of prejudice in the military, attitudes and beliefs of Francophone (minority) and Anglophone (majority) prospective military officers toward their own and other groups were assessed at the beginning and at the end of a four‐year officer‐training program. Consistent with social dominance theory and system justification theory, majority group members become significantly more negative toward outgroups (e.g. Francophones, civilians and immigrants) and more likely to internalize beliefs that legitimize the economic gap between Francophones and Anglophones in Canada. Moreover, as predicted on the basis of self‐categorization theory, the results show that identification with the category ‘Canadian Forces Officers’ assessed at the midpoint in the program, moderates the change in intergroup attitudes and beliefs. Finally, minority group members did not internalize negative stereotypes of their own group. These results provide important evidence for the role of group socialization in the explanation of intergroup attitudes and beliefs and suggest that social identification is a key factor in group socialization, consistent with self‐categorization theory. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.