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.     

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.     

Internality attribution and intergroup relations

In two studies, subjects filled out a questionnaire requiring them to choose between internal and external explanations of desirable or undesirable events. They were also asked to fill out the same questionnaire from another person's point of view, either a member of the ingroup or a member of the outgroup. The first study used students as subjects and the events were about student life. The second study used employees for subjects and the events were about the working world. As predicted on the basis of internality norm theory, internal explanations were generally found to be chosen more often when the respondent or imagined respondent was said to be a worthy person. The internality scores were the highest for oneself and for the ingroup member, regardless of the desirability of the events; they were the lowest for the outgroup member. These internality attribution effects do not seem to stem from the well-known ingroup-favouring attributions (ultimate attribution error). Hence, the internality norm construct, irrespective of event desirability, provides a new pathway for exploring the evaluative effects of intergroup relations. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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 identities and intergroup bias in immigrant and nonimmigrant children

Ethnic and American identity, as well as positivity and negativity toward multiple social groups, were assessed in 392 children attending 2nd or 4th grade in various New York City neighborhoods. Children from 5 ethnic groups were recruited, including White and Black Americans, as well as recent immigrants from China, the Dominican Republic, and the former Soviet Union. For ethnic minority children, greater positivity bias (evaluating one's ingroup more positively than outgroups) was predicted by immigrant status and ethnic identity, whereas negativity bias (evaluating outgroups more negatively than one's ingroup) was associated with increased age, immigrant status, and (among 4th graders only) ethnic identity. In addition, a more central American identity was associated with less intergroup bias among ethnic minority children.     

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.     

The political solidarity model of social change: dynamics of self-categorization in intergroup power relations

Social and political change involves a challenge to the status quo in intergroup power relations. Traditionally, the social psychology of social change has focused on disadvantaged minority groups collectively challenging the decisions, actions, and policies of those in positions of established authority. In contrast, this article presents a political solidarity model of social change that explores the process by which members of the majority challenge the authority in solidarity with the minority. It is argued that political solidarity as a social change process involves a contest between the authority and the minority over the meaning of a shared (higher order) identity with the majority. When identity ceases to be shared with the authority and becomes shared with the minority, majority challenge to authority in solidarity with the minority becomes possible. The model's contributions to existing social psychological approaches to social change are also discussed.     

Context-dependent variation in social stereotyping 1: The effects of intergroup relations as mediated by social change and frame of reference

During the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf conflict an experiment was conducted with Australian university students (N = 200) to investigate whether the social stereotyping of Americans varied with social contextual manipulations related to the hostilities. The study, conducted in two phases at the start and end of the conflict, examined how the assignment of standard stereotypical traits to Americans was affected (a) by the large-scale social change constituted by the war and (b) by variation in the frame of reference provided by relevant comparison groups. The elicited stereotypes were sensitive to both of these contextual variables, demonstrating significant variation and fluidity. Overall, stereotypes of Americans were relatively negative. They were significantly more negative (a) at the end of the war than at the beginning in the restricted frame (when Australia and Britain were comparison groups) and (b) in the first phase of the conflict when the frame was extended to include Iraq as a comparison group. The findings were in line with expectations derived from self-categorization theory (Turner, 1985) that the social categorization of self and other into ingroup and outgroup is inherently variable, comparative and context-dependent. They question the long-held view of stereotypes as fixed, rigid and resistant to change.     

Constructing intergroup relationships in social communication

Abstract:  People communicate with each other about their ingroup and outgroup in a social context. These social communications may have profound effects in constructing intergroup relationships. In this paper, we outline how different combinations of the social identities of the sender, receiver, and target of the social communication may give rise to differing face concerns of the ingroup and outgroup, and may result in different patterns of communications about them. People may enhance or protect their ingroup social identity, and derogate the outgroup social identity to their ingroup audiences; however, they are more likely to enhance and protect their outgroup's social identity when communicating with outgroup audiences. Two studies tested these predictions. Study 1 used real groups of Australian and Asian students communicating about an Asian student in an Australian university context. In Study 2, participants assigned to two fictitious groups communicated about their ingroup and outgroup. In both studies, the findings were interpreted within the framework of intergroup communication, although there were some notable deviations from the predictions. Future directions of the research were also discussed.     

Intragroup social influence and intergroup competition

Three experiments examined the role of intragroup social influence in intergroup competition. In the context of a mutual fate control situation, participants in Experiment 1 demonstrated more intergroup competition in the presence than in the absence of social support for shared self-interest. Experiment 2 revealed that, in the context of a Prisoner's Dilemma Game, this social support effect was stronger when noncorrespondence of outcomes between the interacting groups was low than when it was high. Results from Experiment 3 were consistent with the possibility that the effect of social support is attenuated when noncorrespondence of outcomes is high because under these circumstances intergroup competition is prescribed by a norm of group interest. The implications of these findings for understanding the antecedents of interindividual-intergroup discontinuity are discussed.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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     

Self-stereotyping in the context of multiple social identities

This research examines self-stereotyping in the context of multiple social identities and shows that self-stereotyping is a function of stereotyped expectancies held in particular relationships. Participants reported how others evaluated their math and verbal ability and how they viewed their own ability when their gender or ethnicity was salient. Asian American women (Experiment 1) and European Americans (Experiment 2) exhibited knowledge of stereotyped social expectancies and corresponding self-stereotyping associated with their more salient identity. African Americans (Experiment 3) exhibited some knowledge of stereotyped social expectancies but no corresponding self-stereotyping. Correlational evidence and a 4th experiment suggest that self-stereotyping is mediated by the degree to which close others are perceived to endorse stereotypes as applicable to the self.     

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.