Effects of intergroup similarity on intergroup relations

We examined the impact of intergroup similarity on two aspects of intergroup relations. Drawing on social identity and belief congruence theory, we hypothesized that — at high levels of intergroup similarity — increasing similarity has dual, seemingly opposed effects: It increases ingroup favouritism in evaluations but also increases readiness for social contact with the outgroup. We further hypothesized that both effects are moderated by the strength of individuals' identification with their ingroup. Finally, we hypothesized that there is ingroup favouritism on dimensions relevant for defining the group, but outgroup favouritism on dimensions irrelevant for this purpose. One hundred and forty-nine students from two prestigious high schools, who were assigned to one of three levels of manipulated similarity between their schools, evaluated both schools on dimensions relevant and irrelevant to the school context and expressed their readiness for social contact with the other school. Ingroup favouritism appeared on relevant dimensions and outgroup favouritism on irrelevant dimensions. As predicted, for those highly identified with their ingroup, intergroup similarity led to greater ingroup favouritism in evaluations on relevant dimensions but to increased readiness for outgroup social contact. Implications for interpreting inconsistent results of past research and for specifying conditions for intergroup bias are discussed.     

Individual and social identities in intergroup relations

Henri Tajfel's contribution to the experimental study of intergroup relations is highlighted and recent complementary approaches are presented. The distinction between deductive and inductive aspects of social categorization and the links between within group and between group interaction and differentiation are commented. A plea is made for studying self as social representation and for considering ethical issues of intergroup relations.     

The categorisation process in intergroup relations

In the first two parts of the paper a distinction is made between a ?conflict or convergence of interests' approach (Sherif) and a ?categorisation' approach (Tajfel) in the area of the experimental study of intergroup relations. Some recent experimental findings are mentioned, and a theoretical development of the categorisation approach is proposed. In the third part a new experiment illustrating the relevance of the categorisation approach is described.     

Group morality and intergroup relations: cross-cultural and experimental evidence

An observational, cross-cultural study and an experimental study assessed behaviors indicative of a moral code that condones, and even values, hostility toward outgroups. The cross-cultural study, which used data from the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample (Murdock & White, 1969), found that for preindustrial societies, as loyalty to the ingroup increased the tendency to value outgroup violence more than ingroup violence increased, as did the tendencies to engage in more external than internal warfare, and enjoy war. The experimental study found that relative to guilt-prone group members who were instructed to remain objective, guilt-prone group members who were instructed to be empathic with their ingroup were more competitive in an intergroup interaction. The findings from these studies suggest that group morality is associated with intergroup conflict.     

Intergroup competition and its effect on intragroup and intergroup relations

Seventy-two male subjects from lower technical schools were divided into groups of three and assigned to three conditions in which they expected to work together in competition with another group, to work together but independently of the other group, or did not anticipate to work together at all. Subjects who anticipated working together showed a more favorable attitude toward their group and its members than subjects who did not. Moreover, actual social interaction increased in-group attractiveness. Intergroup competition led to a more differentiated leadership structure and a greater consensus about the distribution of influence in the group. Contrary to our predictions, intergroup competition produced no greater in-group solidarity, nor any over-evaluation of the group's product. Low influence persons felt comparatively more positive about their group even before they actually had the opportunity to work together. An attempt was made to relate this finding to the ordinal position of the low status figure, his affiliative tendencies under stress, and his greater social dependence.     

Explanations for positive and negative behavior: the intergroup attribution bias in achieved groups

Previous research into intergroup attribution has addressed mainly the behavior of groups to which members are ascribed (e.g. gender, race). The attribution processes of groups of which membership is achieved (e.g. friendship groups) is less well understood, and the current study sought to address this. Fifty-five undergraduate participants were asked to explain the positive and negative behavior of a member of the in-group and a member of the out-group. As predicted, the participants attributed an in-group member's positive behavior more, and their negative behavior less, to internal, global, and specific causes than they did the corresponding behavior of an out-group member. There was also evidence that the participants employed a strategy of out-group derogation in their attributions: they made a higher intemality rating for an out-group member's negative behavior than they did for that person's positive behavior. It is proposed that the current study's use of achieved groups maximized participants' levels of group identification, and that this in turn motivated behavioral strategies aimed at protecting that identity.     

Explanations for positive and negative behavior: the intergroup attribution bias in achieved groups

Previous research into intergroup attribution has addressed mainly the behavior of groups to which members are ascribed (e.g. gender, race). The attribution processes of groups of which membership is achieved (e.g. friendship groups) is less well understood, and the current study sought to address this. Fifty-five undergraduate participants were asked to explain the positive and negative behavior of a member of the in-group and a member of the out-group. As predicted, the participants attributed an in-group member's positive behavior more, and their negative behavior less, to internal, global, and specific causes than they did the corresponding behavior of an out-group member. There was also evidence that the participants employed a strategy of out-group derogation in their attributions: they made a higher intemality rating for an out-group member's negative behavior than they did for that person's positive behavior. It is proposed that the current study's use of achieved groups maximized participants' levels of group identification, and that this in turn motivated behavioral strategies aimed at protecting that identity.     

Comments on Doise's Individual and social identities in intergroup relations

Developments within the social identity tradition have led to work on the inductive aspects of categorization and the relation between personal and social identity, individuality and groupness. Other issues raised by Doise represent important areas for research and theoretical discussion.     

Categories versus groups as explanatory concepts in intergroup relations

In this discussion of papers by Doise (1988) and Tajfel (1982) it is argued that a conceptual distinction should be made between social groups and social categories. A social group can be considered as a ‘dynamic whole’ or social system, characterized by the perceived interdependence among its members, whereas a social category can be defined as a collection of individuals who share at least one attribute in common. This distinction is crucial for the understanding of outgroup favouritism in the minimal intergroup situation, the basic similarity between large scale groupings and face-to-face groups, the difference between group identification and social identity and the issue of categorizations versus attributions in intergroup conflict.     

The importance of being we: human nature and intergroup relations

The author discusses the nature of in-group bias and the social motives that underlie ethnocentric attachment to one's own membership groups. Two common assumptions about in-group bias are challenged: that in-group positivity necessitates out-group derogation and that in-group bias is motivated by self-enhancement. A review of relevant theory and research on intergroup relations provides evidence for 3 alternative principles: (a) in-group attachment and positivity are primary and independent of out-groups, (b) security motives (belonging and distinctiveness) underlie universal in-group favoritism, and (c) attitudes toward out-groups vary as a function of intergroup relationships and associated threats to belonging and distinctiveness     

Caring and Internality

In his work on internality, identification, and caring, Harry Frankfurt attempts to delineate the organization of agency peculiar to human beings, while avoiding the traditional overintellectualized emphasis on the human capacity to reason about action. The focal point of Frankfurt's alternative picture is our capacity to make our own motivation the object of reflection. Building upon the observation that marginal agents (such as young children and Alzheimer's patients) are capable of caring, I show that neither caring nor internality need to depend on the phenomena of reflectiveness. I develop alternative interlocking accounts of caring and internality that are independent of both reflectiveness and evaluation, but that can still do justice to the central role of carings in the organization of agency characteristic of human persons.     

Biculturalism amongst ethnic minorities: Its impact for individuals and intergroup relations

This review article offers an integration of acculturation, biculturalism, and intergroup relations research. Additionally, it argues that bicultural identities can be more accurately conceptualised as a third, hyphenated cultural identity (e.g., Chinese‐Australian), in addition to one's ethnic and the dominant national identity. In doing so, this article proposes that hyphenated cultural identities may be personally meaningful for many ethnic minorities and discusses the function of hyphenated cultural identification for individuals and society. Given the relevance of bicultural identification, it is argued that recognising and understanding a hyphenated cultural identity is fundamental to ethnic minorities' wellbeing, as well as improving the quality of intergroup relations in multicultural societies, such as Australia.     

Group participation and intergroup relations: An experimental study of negotiation groups

Negotiations were conducted to investigate the effects on settlement-points andon the attitudes and perceptions of participants of (i) group participation and (ii)belief in own group's point of view, in a 2 × 2 factorial design. Ninety-six school children prepared cases in groups of four before representing their group's position against an individual of a similarly prepared opposed group. Group participation was manipulated by groups either participating in preparatory discussions or observing video films of another group's discussions. Belief was manipulated by systematically varying the composition of groups according to scores on a pre-test of attitudes towards the raising of the school-leaving age. In general the belief manipulation operated as expected, ‘believers’ exhibiting less variability, more tit-for-tat agreements and less opinion change than the ‘disbelievers’. Group participation did not influence the measures as predicted, and measures of interpersonal perception did not conform to the pattern of findings in recent experiments on intergroup discrimination. The results are discussed in terms of (i) their relevance to the issue of the appropriate relationship of the representative to his group in a negotiation and (ii) their implications for intergroup relations theory.     

Beyond contact: intergroup contact in the context of power relations

This work investigated how group-based power affects the motivations and preferences that members of advantaged and disadvantaged groups bring to situations of contact. To measure the preferred content of interactions, desires to address particular topics in intergroup contact were assessed for both experimental groups (Study 1) and real groups (Study 2). As predicted, across both studies, the desire to talk about power was greater among members of disadvantaged than of advantaged groups. This difference was mediated by motivation for change in group-based power. Study 2 further demonstrated that more highly identified members of disadvantaged groups wanted to talk about power more. Members of advantaged groups generally preferred to talk about commonalities between the groups more than about group-based power, and this desire was greater with higher levels of identification. However, perceiving that their group's advantage was illegitimate increased the desire of advantaged group members to address power in intergroup interactions.     

Efficiency and defense motivated ingroup projection: Sources of protoypicality in intergroup relations

Members of higher status groups generalize characteristics of their ingroup to superordinate categories that serve as a frame of reference for comparisons with outgroups (ingroup projection). We propose that the causal process depends on the security of the intergroup context: When intergroup relations are secure, projection derives from a motivation to represent the superordinate category efficiently; when they are insecure, projection is a defense motivated process. Accordingly, we hypothesized that inducing participants to use heuristic vs. systematic information processing (via time pressure, cognitive load, or thoughtfulness instructions) would have differential effects on ingroup projection in secure as compared to insecure intergroup relations. Three experiments manipulated security of the intergroup context and information processing mode in artificial (Studies 1 and 2) or natural (Study 3) groups. We found that time pressure increased ingroup projection in the secure-group condition but decreased it in the insecure-group condition (Study 1), cognitive load increased projection in the secure but not in the insecure condition (Study 2) and thoughtfulness instructions increased projection for high identifiers in the insecure but not in the secure condition (Study 3). Results support the hypothesis that ingroup projection occurs as a cognitive bias in secure intergroup relations but that it is socially motivated by the specific intergroup relation when this relation is insecure.     

The Jigsaw classroom under test: No effect on intergroup relations evident

Two quasi‐experiments with intervention and control classes investigated effects of the Jigsaw classroom on intergroup relations, with 11 years old in grade 6 (Study 1) and 13–15 years old in grades 8–10 (Study 2). Both studies investigated developments in majority members' outgroup attitudes, intergroup friendship and empathy. They also investigated attitudes towards school among all the students. Study 2 added assessments of common ingroup identity in the majority sample and considered outgroup attitudes in the minorities' sample. Particularly in Study 2, an effort was made to ensure an accurate implementation of Jigsaw. The studies could not confirm that Jigsaw had effects on intergroup relations. Study 2, using adolescents as participants and 11 Jigsaw classes, found no effects of Jigsaw. In Study 1, one of the two Jigsaw classes had a statistically significant, minor favourable development along outgroup attitudes. However, this development may have been an effect of having two teachers (and few students in the class); no similar development was uncovered in the second Jigsaw class (with one teacher). The data question the frequent optimism on behalf of the Jigsaw classroom as an effective means to counter prejudice. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Responsibility attribution and support provision in an intergroup context: An examination in a simulated society game1

Abstract: Two studies were conducted to examine the relationship between ingroup identification, responsibility attribution, and attitude toward support provision. The data were collected from the participants of a simulated society game named SIMINSOC (Simulated International Society; Hirose, 1997 ). The global society in the game includes two rich regions and two poor regions, and the poor regions need to obtain support from rich regions for survival. In the two studies, participants were randomly assigned to either rich or poor regions, were engaged in various activities in the game, and answered questions concerning the identification, responsibility attribution, and attitude toward support provision. The results indicated that responsibility attributions were biased to favor the ingroups. Furthermore, poor regions believed that they should be supported more than the rich regions intended to provide support. Structural equation analyses suggested that the intergroup bias in attribution was increased when identification toward the ingroup was strong. The discussion considers the implications of the findings for interactions between groups.