In need of liberation or constraint? How intergroup attitudes moderate the behavioral implications of intergroup ideologies

This study examined how behavioral responses to ideologies prompting other- or self-focus during intergroup exchanges depend on what individuals see when they look out at an outgroup interaction partner or in toward themselves. Specifically, we predicted that the outward focus on learning about and from outgroup members encouraged by multiculturalism would benefit lower-prejudice individuals (LPs) but instead amplify the implications of negative perceptions for higher-prejudice individuals (HPs). In contrast, we predicted that the evaluative concerns and self-focus induced by anti-racism would harm LPs’ behavior by leading them to second-guess acting on positive impulses but improve HPs’ behavior by leading them to rein in unfavorable reactions. Results were generally consistent with these predictions. Color-blindness had a negative effect not moderated by prejudice. These results suggest that tailoring the ideology promoted in a specific setting to the particular individuals who will be exposed to it might enhance the effectiveness of intervention efforts.     

Can intergroup contact improve humanity attributions?

In this paper, intergroup contact was evaluated as a strategy to favor outgroup humanization. We tested a double‐mediation model, in which contact is associated with both decreased salience of intergroup boundaries and the adoption of a common identity. These recategorizations, in turn, are related to lower levels of anxiety and higher levels of empathy, both emotions being proximal predictors of outgroup humanization. The model was tested using structural equation modeling in the context of different intergroup relations: Italians versus immigrants (Study 1); Northern Italians versus Southern Italians (Study 2). Supporting the hypotheses, group representations and emotions mediated the relationship between contact and humanity attributions. The practical implications of results are discussed.     

Fairness or discrimination in intergroup behaviour? a reply to Branthwaite,Doyle and Lightbown

Branthwaite, Doyle and Lightbown (1979) argue that minimal intergroup behaviour represents a compromise or balance between fairness and discrimination, that fairness and discrimination are opposed, generic norms of intergroup relations and that one factor affecting their relative weight is status position since, apparently, different status groups attempt to equalize their positions by varying the degree to which they are fair or discriminatory. This reply reviews evidence to show that minimal groups are never fair but always discriminatory to varying degrees and that a generic norm of intergroup fairness is unnecessary to explain why that discrimination rarely approaches maximum. It also argues that the concept of opposed, generic norms has neither empirical nor theoretical value. Finally, it cites findings that the basic tendency in intergroup behaviour is not to equalize but to accentuate evaluative differences between groups (whether of similar or different status) in favour of the ingroup.     

Does intergroup contact affect personality? A longitudinal study on the bidirectional relationship between intergroup contact and personality traits

We conducted a longitudinal study to test whether, in addition to being predicted by personality, intergroup contact is longitudinally associated with personality traits. Participants were 388 majority (Italian) and 109 minority (immigrant) first‐year high school students. Results revealed a bidirectional relationship between contact and personality: Quality of contact was longitudinally associated with greater agreeableness and openness to experience, whereas agreeableness and openness to experience were longitudinal predictors of contact quality. An unexpected negative longitudinal association also emerged between quantity of contact and agreeableness. These effects were not moderated by group of belonging (majority vs. minority). Our findings highlight the importance of integrating research on intergroup contact with research on personality.     

Coalition or derogation? How perceived discrimination influences intraminority intergroup relations

Five studies explored how perceived societal discrimination against one's own racial group influences racial minority group members' attitudes toward other racial minorities. Examining Black-Latino relations, Studies 1a and 1b showed that perceived discrimination toward oneself and one's own racial group may be positively associated with expressed closeness and common fate with another racial minority group, especially if individuals attribute past experiences of discrimination to their racial identity rather than to other social identities (Study 1b). In Studies 2-5, Asian American (Studies 2, 3, and 4) and Latino (Study 5) participants were primed with discrimination against their respective racial groups (or not) and completed measures of attitudes toward Black Americans. Participants primed with racial discrimination expressed greater positivity toward and perceived similarity with Blacks than did participants who were not primed. These results suggest, consistent with the common ingroup identity model (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000), that salient discrimination against one's own racial group may trigger a common "disadvantaged racial minority" (ingroup) identity that engenders more positive attitudes toward and feelings of closeness toward other racial minorities.     

Social representations and intergroup conflicts: Who's smoking here?

We studied the influence of explicitating a social conflict between smokers and nonsmokers on the social representations held about tobacco. Two representations were found: a psychological' representation which was defined by psychological explanations of the causes of beginning to smoke, a characterization of smokers as psychologically disturbed, and negative feelings towards smokers; a second defensive representation which attributes smoking to social factors, and hold both a positive stereotype of smokers and positive feelings towards smokers. The percentage of smokers who adhere to the defensive representation increased significantly when the conflict was made salient. Non-smokers were not influenced by the explicitation of the social conflict. The structure of each representation was analyzed. It was found that in the psychological' representation the structuring element was the negative stereotype of smokers. By contrast, the structuring element in the defensive representation was identification with smokers. The implicatlons of this data for theories of both intergroup relations and social representations are discussed.     

Perceived intergroup competition and adolescents’ behavioural intentions toward minorities: the role of threat,stereotypes and emotions

The main purpose of this study was to analyse the effect of perceived intergroup competition on majority adolescents’ behavioural intentions toward two relevant immigrant groups in the Spanish context, Ecuadorians and Moroccans. We proposed an integrative path model in which perceived intergroup competition led to perception of outgroup threat, which in turn affected warmth stereotypes (morality and sociability). Perceived warmth further fostered positive and negative emotions, which in turn predicted facilitative and harmful interpersonal behavioural tendencies. Following a between subject design, participants (N = 231, M_age = 15.39, SD = 1.09) evaluated Moroccans (n = 114) or Ecuadorians (n = 117) on the examined variables. Results indicate that Ecuadorians were perceived as more moral and sociable and elicited less negative emotions than Moroccans. The model had a good fit for both groups. Perceived intergroup competition predicted perceived outgroup threat which, in turn, fostered perceived morality and sociability. Only perceived morality predicted both positive and negative emotions, whereas sociability elicited only positive emotions. Finally, facilitation intentions were predicted by both positive and negative emotions, while harm intentions were triggered only by negative ones. Results highlight the distinctive role of morality for intergroup relations during adolescence and extend previous literature regarding perceived intergroup competition, stereotype content, emotions and perceived outgroup threat.

     

Why do I hate thee? Conflict misperceptions and intergroup mistrust

Members of partisan social groups often exaggerate how much their own opinions differ from those of their rivals. In the present two studies, partisans estimated their own and their rivals' attitudes toward different issues related to the social conflict and also made a variety of evaluative judgments about their own and the rival group. The authors found that (a) partisans perceive more disagreement with their rivals about values that are central to their own sides' ideological position than those that are central to their rivals' position and (b) perceptions of disagreement about the partisans' own central values are what predicts partisans' global evaluations of members of the outgroup (e.g., disliking, trait stereotypes, perceived similarity). Furthermore, partisans believed their adversaries were motivated by an opposition to the partisans' own core values rather than by promotion of the adversaries' core values. Discussion concentrates on the theoretical and applied implications of these findings.     

Do observer ratings validate self-reports of intergroup contact?: A round-robin analysis

Two studies used a round-robin design to examine whether the observers made consensual judgments of targets' degree and quality of intergroup contact, and whether these consensual judgments were correlated with the targets' own self ratings, and moderated by the observability of the contact. Study 1 revealed projection/assumed similarity, with participants rating others as similar to themselves to a large extent, but also yielded evidence for the validity of whites' self-reports of direct, but not extended, intergroup contact with Asians, even when controlling for extraversion and perceived attitudes. Study 2 replicated the main results, using both Asians and Gay men as outgroups, and showed that participants' ratings discriminated between the two discrete outgroups, with measures of contact and attitude being only meaningfully related within, but not between, outgroups. Overall, these findings help to validate self-report measures of direct intergroup contact.     

Relative performance and implicit incentives in the intergroup prisoner’s dilemma

This paper illustrates how the payoff matrices of the single group Prisoner’s Dilemma (PD) and the Intergroup Prisoner’s Dilemma (IPD) differentially reinforce cooperation when participants care about relative performance. Examples of particular payoff patterns and thought experiments using a computational simulation demonstrate that withholding cooperation is not always the dominant strategy in the IPD. In the intergroup structure, three conditions differentially reinforce cooperation. When competing groups have equal numbers of cooperators, withholding cooperation is always the dominant strategy just as in the single group structure. In contrast, when one group has more cooperators than the other group, cooperation by its members can dominate withholding cooperation by members of the other group. Thus, the relative advantage of one group over another increases the payoff for cooperation in some configurations of the IPD over the payoff in the PD. Relative payoff is thus an untheorized variable motivating cooperation in the IPD.     

Dominant group members in intergroup interaction: safety or vulnerability in numbers?

An experiment examined how low- and high-prejudice dominant group members' (LPs' and HPs') reactions to intergroup contact were affected by whether they were accompanied by fellow ingroup members who exhibited prejudice-relevant behavior. Participants answered questions alone or in a group and then estimated how they were viewed by an observer who was an ingroup or an outgroup member. HPs believed that they were viewed more negatively by an outgroup member in the individual than the group condition. LPs showed the opposite effect, which led them to evaluate the outgroup member more negatively in the group condition. All participants in the group condition expected an outgroup member to exaggerate their similarity to the other ingroup members present, and LPs evaluated the other ingroup members more negatively when the observer was an outgroup member. The results suggest that intergroup attitudes guide the types of intergroup contact situations that are experienced most positively.     

'Rallying around the flag': Can an intergroup contact intervention promote national unity?

A longitudinal study evaluated the success of a contact-based nation-building intervention (the Malaysian National Service Programme) in promoting various facets of national unity. The study assessed how post-test measures of quality of intergroup contact, outgroup evaluations, and levels of identification changed compared to their respective pre-test levels, for both National Service and control group participants. The intervention did not lead to a worsening of any of the constructs related to intergroup relations, which is noteworthy given the novelty for many participants of mixing in a multi-ethnic setting. Furthermore, all rater groups (Malays, Chinese, and Indians) maintained their ethnic identity, even in the presence of high levels of national identity, which we discuss with respect to past research on the effects of positive intergroup contact on minority group identification. However, the changes associated with the intervention yielded only small effect sizes, and, on the whole, National Service participants did not show significantly greater improvement than that experienced by control participants. We discuss the value of intergroup contact in this novel setting, considering various features of this programme that may have limited its effectiveness and discuss how such interventions can more successfully meet their goals.     

Does social dominance generate prejudice? Integrating individual and contextual determinants of intergroup cognitions

Social dominance orientation (SDO) has been proposed as an important variable in the explanation of prejudice. We distinguish between three conceptualizations of SDO: SDO as a personality trait (personality model), SDO as a moderator of the effects of situational variables (Person x Situation model), and SDO as a mediator of the effect of social position on prejudice (group socialization model [GSM]). Four studies (N = 1.657) looking at the relations between social positions, SDO, and prejudice in a natural setting and in a laboratory setting provide strong support for the GSM. In contrast to previous correlational findings, there is evidence of a cause (dominant social position), an effect (prejudice increases), and a mediator (SDO). These results suggest new perspectives on the integration of individual and contextual determinants of prejudice.     

Explanations of interindividual – intergroup discontinuity: A review of the evidence

The authors review and evaluate various explanations for the tendency of intergroup relations to be more competitive, or less cooperative, than interindividual relations (the discontinuity effect). They distinguish between two general perspectives, each comprising a set of explanations for the discontinuity effect. The fear and greed perspective assumes that intergroup relations are characterised by greater fear and greed than are interindividual relations. The group decision-making perspective assumes a crucial role for group discussion in facilitating rational comprehension of mixed-motive situations. In general, explanations from the fear and greed perspective were found to be more consistent with the empirical record than explanations from the group decision-making perspective. The authors propose that a complete understanding of the discontinuity effect is yet to be achieved.     

Is there any scapegoat around? Determinants of intergroup conflicts at different categorization levels.

Recategorization at a higher level reduces tensions between groups. However, recategorization may cause conflicts between the common in-group and a new out-group. Additionally, determinants of conflict between subgroups may enhance conflict at the higher categorization level. In the context of German unification, the authors explored these suggestions with an East German 3-wave longitudinal study and a West German control group. Results show that a salient East German versus West German categorization enhances conflict between subgroups, whereas categorization as German enhances conflict at the common in-group level. Determinants of subgroup conflict also influence conflict at the inclusive level (Germans and foreigners). Thus, recategorization is a 2-edged instrument: Although it reduces conflict at the subgroup level, it may initiate conflict at the common in-group level.     

How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta‐analytic tests of three mediators

Recent years have witnessed a renewal of interest in intergroup contact theory. A meta‐analysis of more than 500 studies established the theory's basic contention that intergroup contact typically reduces prejudices of many types. This paper addresses the issue of process: just how does contact diminish prejudice? We test meta‐analytically the three most studied mediators: contact reduces prejudice by (1) enhancing knowledge about the outgroup, (2) reducing anxiety about intergroup contact, and (3) increasing empathy and perspective taking. Our tests reveal mediational effects for all three of these mediators. However, the mediational value of increased knowledge appears less strong than anxiety reduction and empathy. Limitations of the study and implications of the results are discussed. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Can music bring people together? Effects of shared musical preference on intergroup bias in adolescence

Recent research has successfully applied social identity theory to demonstrate how individuals use music as a basis for intergroup differentiation. The current study investigated how music might also be used to encourage the development of positive intergroup attitudes. Participants (N = 97) were allocated to one of two experimentally created social groups and then led to believe that the groups had similar or different musical preferences. They then evaluated each group and reported their perceptions concerning how they expected their own group to be evaluated by the other group. Participants who believed the groups had similar musical preferences reported more positive intergroup attitudes relative to a control group; they also expected to be evaluated more positively by members of the other group. However, positive intergroup perceptions were also reported by those who believed the two groups had different musical preferences. The implications of these findings for theory and practice are discussed.     

Can imagined intergroup contact change (internal) dialogues on differences between ingroup and outgroup?

Several positive functions have been ascribed to integrative internal dialogues (IDs), which are based on mutual openness to a partner's viewpoint and a readiness to consider his/her arguments in order to potentially modify one's own stance. As the technique of imagined intergroup contact (IIC) favorably influences attitudes towards outgroup members, it was hypothesized that IIC would have a beneficial impact on IDs with an outgroup member when the dialogue is focused on differences between ingroup and outgroup. In the experiment, 151 people (80 women) participated. It revealed that after IIC, both the dialogue author's confrontational attitude and the interlocutor's integrative attitude decreased. Thus, IIC made participants less inclined to gain an advantage over their imagined outgroup interlocutors and more inclined to give them freedom in IDs. However, the effect was significant only when the author's involvement in ID was high or medium.     

Implicit associations as the seeds of intergroup bias: how easily do they take root?

Three experiments provided evidence that intergroup bias occurs automatically under minimal conditions, using the Implicit Association Test (IAT). In Experiment 1, participants more readily paired in-group names with pleasant words and out-group names with unpleasant words, even when they were experienced only with the in-group and had no preconceptions about the out-group. Participants in Experiment 2 likewise showed an automatic bias favoring the in-group, even when in-group/out-group exemplars were completely unfamiliar and identifiable only with the use of a heuristic. In Experiment 3, participants displayed a pro-in-group IAT bias following a minimal group manipulation. Taken together, the results demonstrate the ease with which intergroup bias emerges even in unlikely conditions.     

Warm or competent? Improving intergroup relations by addressing threatened identities of advantaged and disadvantaged groups

Applying the Needs‐Based Model of Reconciliation to contexts of group disparity, two studies examined how messages from outgroup representatives that affirmed the warmth or competence of advantaged or disadvantaged groups influenced their members' intergroup attitudes. Study 1 involved natural groups differing in status; Study 2 experimentally manipulated status. In both studies, advantaged‐group members responded more favorably, reporting more positive outgroup attitudes and willingness to change the status quo toward equality, to messages reassuring their group's warmth. Disadvantaged‐group members responded more favorably to messages affirming their group's competence. Study 2 further demonstrated that the effectiveness of reassuring a disadvantaged group's competence stemmed from restoring its threatened dimension of identity, irrespective of a change of the status quo. In line with Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), these results indicate that beyond the competition over tangible resources, groups are concerned with restoring threatened dimensions of their identities. Exchanging messages that remove identity‐related threats may promote not only positive intergroup attitudes but also greater willingness to act collectively for intergroup equality. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.