Effects of diversity versus segregation on automatic approach and avoidance behavior towards own and other ethnic groups

We present the results of a study in which we measured automatic intergroup behavior and evaluations in ethnic majority and minority group members. We focus our attention on the level of segregation and diversity of immediate life contexts as indicators of outgroup exposure. Specifically, Dutch ethnic minority and majority students enrolled at ethnically segregated and diverse schools completed a measure of automatic approach and avoidance behavior and reported explicit intergroup attitudes. The research is framed into prevailing theories in the field: Social Identity Theory and System Justification Theory. Results of our study suggest that segregation of minority group members' immediate life context may be an important moderator of evaluations as well as approach and avoidance behavior toward ingroup and outgroup. In particular, minority members in segregated schools showed an approach bias towards their ingroup, whereas minority members in diverse schools showed an approach bias towards the majority outgroup.     

The effects of intergroup context of evaluation on ambivalence toward the ingroup and the outgroup

A study is reported which examines the relations between ambivalence toward the ingroup and the outgroup. The basic assumption was that ambivalent attitudes in intergroup contexts contribute to satisfying two competing motivations of group members, i.e. establishment of positive distinctiveness for the ingroup and conformity to the fairness norm. Participants were asked to evaluate the ingroup and one other group by using unipolar (positively and negatively valenced) affect‐ and cognition‐based items. We predicted an interaction effect of target group (ingroup versus outgroup) and attitude domain (affect‐based versus cognition‐based) on ambivalence. Additional hypotheses were formulated taking separately into account the positive and the negative unipolar items. We expected that on positively valenced items the ingroup would be favoured over the outgroup on both affect‐ and cognition‐based evaluations. Besides, we predicted that on negatively valenced items, the ingroup would be favoured over the outgroup on affect‐based evaluation but not on cognition‐based evaluation. Results indicated support for the predictions and shed light on the moderating role played by attitude domains on both ambivalence and ingroup favouritism. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Power and status differentials in minority and majority group relations

Using a variant of the minimal group paradigm (Tajfel and Turner, 1986), this study tested the effects of power, status and group numbers on intergroup behaviours and perceptions. Subjects (N = 160) were categorized into groups that varied on status (high or low), power (dominant or subordinate) and group numbers (majority or minority) variables within a 2 × 2 × 2 experimental design. Based on their evaluations of others' creative products, subjects distributed credit points to ingroup and outgroup others using the Tajfel matrices. Results showed that dominant group members were much more discriminatory and less parity oriented towards outgroup others than subordinate group members. High status group members were more discriminatory and less parity oriented than low status group members. Minority group members who were dominant and of high status were highly discriminatory and were unique in showing no parity whatsoever towards outgroup others. Subordinate low status minorities did not discriminate and were exceptional in showing out-group favouritism. Relative to group status and group numbers, group power seemed more predictive of actual discriminatory behaviour. Group status accounted for the greatest variance in social identification and intergroup perceptions measures. Results also showed that social categorization was sufficient to elicit more in-group than outgroup liking amongst all group members regardless of their position in the intergroup structure. Overall, this study indicated that power, status and group numbers independently and in combination, have a strong impact on intergroup behaviours and perceptions.     

Perceptions of and by minority groups: The case of women in academia

Thirty seven academics participated in a field study in which perceptions of the size and attributes of a majority and minority group were obtained. (The groups concerned were male and female academics at a British university). These observations were used to examine the phenomenon of illusory correlation, and to test hypotheses concerning the perceived homogeneity and competence of ingroup and outgroup in majority-minority contexts. To test for the illusory correlation effect estimates of the numbers of male and female senior staff were elicited. These estimates were consistently inaccurate, producing a lower perceived correlation between gender and seniority than actually existed. Measures of intragroup homogeneity revealed that, as predicted from previous research, members of the minority group saw their own group as more homogeneous than the outgroup. For majorty group members the reverse was true. The intergroup evaluations generally favoured the minority group; this was especially evident in the evaluations from the minority group members themselves. Possible explanations of these findings and their correspondence with those obtained from laboratory research are discussed.     

Property and prejudice: How racial attitudes and social‐evaluative concerns shape property appraisals

Property evaluations rarely occur in the absence of social context. However, no research has investigated how intergroup processes related to prejudice extend to concepts of property. In the present research, we propose that factors such as group status, prejudice and pressure to mask prejudiced attitudes affect how people value the property of racial ingroup and outgroup members. In Study 1, White American and Asian American participants were asked to appraise a hand‐painted mug that was ostensibly created by either a White or an Asian person. Asian participants demonstrated an ingroup bias. White participants showed an outgroup bias, but this effect was qualified. Specifically, among White participants, higher racism towards Asian Americans predicted higher valuations of mugs created by Asian people. Study 2 revealed that White Americans' prejudice towards Asian Americans predicted higher valuations of the mug created by an Asian person only when participants were highly concerned about conveying a non‐prejudiced personal image. Our results suggest that, ironically, prejudiced majority group members evaluate the property of minority group members whom they dislike more favourably. The current findings provide a foundation for melding intergroup relations research with research on property and ownership.     

Status differenttals and intergroup behaviour

This study investigated the independent effects of status differential on intergroup behaviour. Using a variant of the minimal group paradigm (Tueland Turner, 1979), subjects were categorized into groups of differing status (high, equal, low) with two levels of category salience (high, low). Using Tajfel's matrices subjects rated the creativity of products ostensibly produced by ingroup and outgroup members. Own group identification, intergroup perceptions and self-reported strategies on the matrices constituted the other dependent measures. Results indicated a main effect for group status but none for salience. Equal status groups discriminated against each other thus replicating the minimal intergroup discrimination effect. High and equal status group members were more discriminatory against outgroups and more positive about their own group membership than were low status group members. In contrast, low status group members engaged in significant amounts of outgroup favouritism. Results also showed that social categorization per se was sufficient to elicit more ingroup than outgroup liking amongst all group members regardless of status differentials between groups. Overall, the results illustrate important aspects of the interplay between group status, social identity, prejudice and discrimination.     

Effects of minority status in the classroom on children's intergroup attitudes

Three studies examined the effects of relative group size on the development of children's intergroup attitudes. The studies employed a novel group paradigm in which elementary school children attending a summer school program were assigned to larger (i.e., majority) or smaller (i.e., minority) novel groups in their classroom (denoted by colored tee-shirts). In each study, relative group size was situated within a different classroom context. Study 1 examined the effects of relative group size when teachers made functional use of the novel groups and were themselves members of the novel groups. Study 2 examined the effects of relative group size in the absence of functional use. Study 3 examined the effects of relative group size when the classroom environment contained implicit messages about group status. In each study, children's intergroup attitudes (e.g., trait ratings, group evaluations) were assessed following several weeks in the classroom. The effect of relative group size on in-group bias was complex, varying as a function of (a) the relative size and salience of groups, (b) the measure used to assess intergroup attitudes, (c) group status (higher or lower), and (d) children's age.     

Relationships between intergroup contact and prejudice among minority and majority status groups

Considerable research has shown that greater intergroup contact corresponds with lower intergroup prejudice, yet little is known regarding how the relationships between contact and prejudice may vary for members of minority and majority status groups. The present research examined differences in contact-prejudice relationships among members of minority and majority status groups, using data from a larger meta-analytic study of the effects of intergroup contact. Results indicate that the relationships between contact and prejudice tend to be weaker among members of minority status groups than among members of majority status groups. Moreover, establishing Allport's (1954) proposed conditions for optimal intergroup contact significantly predicts stronger contact-prejudice relationships among members of majority status groups, but not among members of minority status groups. Implications of these findings for future research on contact between minority and majority status groups are discussed.     

Minimal majorities and minorities

This study is one of a series of experiments designed to examine how sociostructural factors such as group numbers, power and status affect intergroup behaviour. Using a variant of Tajfel's ‘minimal group’ paradigm the present study investigated the intergroup behaviour of college students categorized as numerical minority, majority or ‘equal’ group members. The effects of salient (S) versus non-salient (S?) group categorizations were also examined. These manipulations yielded a 3 × 2 design matrix consisting of majority/equal/minority × salient (S)/non-salient (S?) group conditions. Unlike most previous studies using this paradigm, subjects' responses on Tajfel's point distribution matrices were supplemented with subjects' report of their own and outgroup's point distribution strategies. As expected, minimal group results were replicated in the ‘equal’ group (S?) condition such that mere categorization into ingroup/outgroup was sufficient to foster intergroup discrimination. However salient (S) equal group members were more fair than discriminatory in their responses. Minorities (S/S?) were generally less fair than equal groups, showed high levels of absolute ingroup favouritism (S?) while simultaneously attempting to establish positive distinctiveness from majorities. Though majorities were generally fair (S/S?), they also appeared to be more concerned than minorities about maintaining positive differentials between themselves and minorities. Although, majority (S/S?) and equal group (S?) members accurately reported their actual distribution strategies, minorities (S/S?) and equal (S) group members were not as accurate in their self reports. Overall the present results are consistent with hypotheses derived from Social Identity Theory. But the results also show that sociostructural variables such as group numbers can have an important impact on intergroup behaviours.     

The other side of we: when outgroup members express common identity

Previous research on the common ingroup identity model has focused on how one's representations of members of the ingroup and outgroup influence intergroup attitudes. Two studies reported here investigated how learning how others, ingroup or outgroup members, conceive of the groups within a superordinate category affects intergroup bias and willingness to engage in intergroup contact. Across both studies, high school students who learned that other ingroup members categorized students at both schools within the common identity of "students" showed less intergroup bias in evaluations and greater willingness for contact. However, consistent with the hypothesized effects of identity threat, when participants read that outgroup members saw the groups within the superordinate category, they exhibited a relatively negative orientation, except when ingroup members also endorsed a superordinate identity (Study 1). This result occurred even when the relative status of the groups was manipulated (Study 2).     

Social identity,relative group status and intergroup attitudes: when favourable outcomes change intergroup relations…for the worse

This study examines in a natural setting (N = 253) the effects of favourable outcomes at the individual and group levels on the relations between members of high (nondisabled) and low (disabled) status groups. Consistent with past research, the results show that, overall, high‐status group members are more likely than low‐status group members to display ingroup bias. Furthermore, as hypothesized on the basis of the role of relative gratification in intergroup relations, a favourable group outcome led high‐status group members to derogate the low‐status outgroup. On the other hand, as predicted from the assumption that outgroup favouritism reflects a strategy of individual mobility, a favourable individual outcome led low‐status group members to display an evaluative bias in favour of, and to identify with, the high‐status outgroup. The implications of these findings for the explanation of outgroup favouritism and outgroup derogation are discussed. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Longitudinal effects of contact on intergroup relations: The role of majority and minority group membership and intergroup emotions

A field study was conducted in the Italian context to examine the longitudinal effects of contact on improved intergroup relations, and to test whether the effects were different for majority and minority group members. Furthermore, we examined the processes underlying contact effects. Participants were 68 Italian (majority) and 31 immigrant (minority) secondary school students, who completed a questionnaire at two time points. The results of regression analyses showed that, consistent with the contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954 ), quantity and quality of contact longitudinally improved outgroup evaluation and increased the attribution of positive stereotypes to the outgroup; the reverse paths were non‐significant. Notably, whereas quantity of contact improved intergroup attitudes and stereotypes for both majority and minority participants, quality of contact had reliable effects only for the majority group. Intergroup anxiety and empathy mediated the longitudinal effects of quantity of contact for both Italians and immigrants; the cross‐lagged effects of contact quality on criterion variables for the Italian group were mediated by intergroup empathy. The theoretical and practical implications of findings are discussed. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Imagining intergroup contact promotes projection to outgroups

Three studies investigated the conditions under which imagining intergroup contact would lead to greater projection of positive traits to outgroups. In Experiment 1 (Mexico) imagined contact predicted greater self-outgroup positive trait overlap for majority but not minority ethnic groups. In Experiment 2 (UK) imagined contact led to greater projection of positive traits to the outgroup for lower compared to higher identifiers. In Experiment 3 (UK) imagined contact led to greater projection of positive traits to the outgroup when the self was salient compared to when the outgroup was salient. These findings suggest that the social cognitive consequences of imagined contact are most favorable for intergroup relations when the personal self, but not social self, is salient. We discuss the implications of these findings for a developing model of imagined contact effects.     

Interpreting references to group membership in context: feelings about intergroup contact depending on who says what to whom

Contact research often manipulates the salience of group membership, with little consideration of how such manipulations affect feelings toward intergroup contact, and how contextual features may moderate its effects. We propose that feelings toward intergroup contact may not depend solely on the degree to which group membership appears to be salient, but on how references to group membership are interpreted in the intergroup context. Two experimental studies examined how references to group membership may be interpreted differently depending on their source (ingroup or outgroup) and the recipient (minority or majority), and how these interpretations predict feelings toward cross‐group interactions. In Study 1, references to group membership were interpreted more negatively from an outgroup source among majority participants, yet a reverse pattern was observed for minority participants. Similar effects were obtained in Study 2, yet participants tended to respond negatively when an outgroup member referred specifically to their group. Moreover, feelings about cross‐group interactions were predicted only (Study 1) and strongly (Study 2) by the degree to which outgroup members' references were interpreted negatively, beyond what was predicted by participants' general awareness of group membership. Implications of these findings for future research on contact and salience are discussed. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

想象接触对大学生内隐态度和外显态度的影响

本研究旨在探讨想象接触对不同民族群体内隐态度和外显态度的影响。实验1和实验2分别随机选取不同先前接触经验的汉族大学生和维吾尔族大学生进行想象接触,采用“单类内隐联想测验(SC-IAT)”和外显态度量表评估不同条件下的内隐态度和外显态度。结果表明：想象接触显著提高了不同群体对外群体的内隐态度,对外显态度影响不显著;而先前接触经验对不同群体的内隐态度影响不显著,对外显态度影响显著。研究还发现,即使是已经发生过面对面接触的个体,也可以通过想象接触来提高对外群体的内隐态度,进一步拓展了想象接触在整个群际接触体系中地位和作用。     

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.     

Imagined contact in high conflict settings: The role of ethnic group identification and the perspective of minority group members

Recent contact literature has shown that imagining a positive intergroup encounter improves intergroup attitudes and behaviors, yet less is known about the effects of imagined contact in high conflict settings. We conducted three studies to understand the potential effects of imagined intergroup contact among ethnic Turks (majority status) and ethnic Kurds (minority status) in the Turkish‐Kurdish interethnic conflict setting. Study 1 (N = 47, Turkish) tested standard imagined contact effects (neutral vs. standard imagined contact condition) among majority Turks and showed that imagined contact was effective on outgroup attitudes, perceived threat, intergroup anxiety, and support for multiculturalism only among participants with higher ethnic identification. Study 2 (N = 107, Turkish) examined how ethnic identification of the contact partner would influence the effectiveness of the standard imagined contact scenario (neutral vs. standard vs. ethnic identification condition) and demonstrated that imagined contact effects were more negative when the contact partner identified with his/her ethnic group during imagined contact. Study 3 (N = 55, Kurdish) investigated imagined contact effects (neutral vs. standard imagined contact condition) among an ethnic minority group and showed that imagined contact did not improve minority group members' outgroup attitudes, but did decrease intergroup anxiety and perceived discrimination (marginally significantly) and increased perceived positive attitudes from the majority group. Practical implications of the use of imagined intergroup contact strategy in conflict‐ridden settings were discussed.     

Social Identity and Intergroup Conflict

This paper explores why people identify with social groups and what this identification signifies for their sense of self, status in society and intergroup conflict. We describe various theories of social identity to elucidate ways in which individuals can negotiate their different social identities, and what this means for intergroup relations. We consider the implications for both majority and minority group members, and those from high and low status groups. We show that social identification is an essential part of an individual’s social existence, and that such identification is inextricably related to intergroup conflict. While overarching common identities have been hailed as a possible panacea for conflict, we demonstrate that such identities have differential effects for minority and majority group members. There is a serious tension between the assimilationist preference that the majority wishes for minority members to adopt, and the integrationist position that the minority group themselves prefer. We conclude with a call to focus research efforts on how to balance the needs of the many and the few in pluralist and unequal societies.     

Rejection as a call to arms: inter-racial hostility and support for political action as outcomes of race-based rejection in majority and minority groups

Both majority and minority group members fear race-based rejection, and respond by disparaging the groups that they expect will reject them. It is not clear, however, how this process differs in minority and majority groups. Using large representative samples of White (N= 4,618) and Māori (N= 1,163) New Zealanders, we found that perceptions of race-based rejection predicted outgroup negativity in both groups, but in different ways and for different reasons. For White (but not Māori) New Zealanders, increased intergroup anxiety partially mediated the relationship between cognitions of rejection and outgroup negativity. Māori who expected to be rejected on the basis of their race reported increased ethnic identification and, in part through this, increased support for political action benefiting their own group. This finding supports collective-action models of social change in historically disadvantaged minority groups.     

Group size,controllability of group membership,and comparative dimension as determinants of intergroup discrimination

We expected that, when group members cannot control their group membership, majority members show ingroup favouritism on task-relevant dimension, whereas minority members were expected to show ingroup favouritism on task-irrelevant dimension (hypothesis I) In addition, it was expected that intergroup comparisons will change when group membership changes from uncontrollable to controllable. Based on Social Identity Theory, two alternative hypotheses were explored: Compared with uncontrollable settings, ingroup bias will decrease (2a) or increase (2b) in controllable settings. Ninety-two subjects were divided into four groups (minority versus majority, controllable versus uncontrollable group membership), allegedly on the basis of their essay writing style. The results supported the first hypothesis. Hypothesis 2a received support among the majority members and hypothesis 2b among the minority members. The findings are discussed in terms of Social Identity Theory and the effect the perceived control of group membership and the dimension may have on intergroup comparisons.