Change in Intergroup Relations

7th Jena Workshop on Intergroup Processes Friedrich-Schiller-University, Jena

June 16th to June 20th, 2004 Oppurg Castle, Germany

The History of Oppurg Castle

In the 11th century Castle Friedrichstein has been built at this place. It was surrounded by moat.

Castle Friedrichstein has been extensively remodeled by Heinrich von Brandenstein in the 14th

century. His family (von Ronow) owned the castle until 1703 when they had to sell it to the duke

of Zeitz and earl of Rumor. He destroyed the Castle Friedrichstein in 1708 in order to build a

baroque castle at the same place. The new castle was built from 1708 until 1714 and has today

still the same form. It was called “Castle Four Seasons Oppurg” and was mainly used as hunting

lodge. The four doorways symbolize the four seasons, the 12 chimneys stand for the 12 months

of a year. The castle has 52 doors and 365 windows representing the number of weeks and days

of a year. The ground plan has the shape of an “E” – the first letter of the name of the earl’s son

in law “privy council von Einsiedel” who inherited the castle. The castle was owned by his

family and afterwards by the family of Hohenlohe until 1945. In the church of Oppurg some

members of the Ronow family are buried in a vault below the tower.

This meeting has been sponsored by the Thuringian Ministry of Science, Research, and Arts the German Research Foundation the European Association of Experimental Social Psychology

Scientific Programme

Wednesday, June 16th

Afternoon Arrival 19:00 Get-together: Thuringian barbecue

Thursday, June 17th 8:20 Introduction 8:30 – 9:30 Keynote I:

Social identity and the link between stress and social change Alex Haslam Identity and Changing Intergroup Relations 9:35 – 10:25 New ways, new pain: the experience of stigma in modern societies Manuela Barreto, Sezgin Cihangir & Katherine Stroebe

Coffee Break 10:40 – 11:30 The motives to deny personal discrimination: The impact of stereotype threat and regulatory focus Muriel Dumont, Tom Postmes, Eléonore Seron & Vincent Yzerbyt 11:35 – 12:25 The group-based self-regulation model: An explanation of intergroup

behavior based on motivational processes Kai Sassenberg 12:30 Lunch 14:00 – 14:50 Types of identification and intergroup differentiation in the Russian Federation Anca Minescu & Edwin Poppe 14:55 – 15:45 Ethnic enclaves and the dynamics of social identity Colette van Laar, Jim Sidanius, Shana Levin & Stacey Sinclair

Coffee Break

Changing Group Bounderies I 16:00 – 16:50 A theoretical framework for making cross-cultural and cross-time comparisons Margaret Foddy & Toshio Yamagishi 16:55 – 17:45 Beyond the reach of tolerance: rejection, expulsion and extermination of

the evil(s) Amélie Mummendey, Jörg Neumann, Thomas Kessler & Sven Waldzus

18:30 Dinner Friday, June 18th 8:30 – 9:30 Keynote II:

Intergroup conflict: The interplay between structure and dynamic Gary Bornstein Changing Group Bounderies II 9:35 – 10:25 From faultlines to fissions: understanding the dissolution of small task

groups Claire Hart & Mark van Vugt

Coffee Break 10:40 – 11:30 United we run, divided we fail? Effects of cognitive merger

representations and performance feedbacks on merging groups Steffen Giessner & Amélie Mummendey

11:35 – 12:25 Changing identities and intergroup processes amongst Welsh rugby

supporters Rob Thomson 12:30 – 13:20 Developing a common identity following an organizational merger: A longitudinal study of the role of pre-merger group status and intergroup

contact Anne O’Brien & Deborah J.Terry 13:20 Lunch 14:15 Departure Social Event

Saturday, June 19th

Positive Changes in Intergroup Relations 8:30 – 9:20 Changing children’s intergroup attitudes towards minority groups

Lindsey Cameron, Adam Rutland & Rupert Brown

9:25 – 10:15 Change of ingroup representations as a means to change outgroup evaluations? Maya Machunsky

Coffee Break

10:30 – 11:20 Changing intergroup relations: Effects of recategorization,

decategorization and dual identity on the reduction of intergroup discrimination

Rita Guerra 11:25 – 12:15 Political intergroup relations in Chile: The role of common ingroup

identity and intergroup contact in promoting political attitude change Roberto Gonzáles, Jorge Manzi, José L. Saiz, Pablo de Tezanos, David Torres,

Nerea Aldunate, María T. Aravena

12:20 – 13:10 cancelled: ‘Basking in reflected glory’ between groups - conditions for a positive intergroup relation Katharina Fuchs-Bodde & Amélie Mummendey

13:20 � new: 12.30 Lunch 14:30 – 15:20 A dynamic perspective on social identification: Predictors and

consequences of identification during group formation

Kerstin Eisenbeiß & Sabine Otten

Coffee Break Collective and Individual Responses to Changing Intergroup Relations I 15:40 – 16:30 Reducing prejudice and undermining collective action: A dilemma for

social change Stephen C. Wright & Micah Lubensky 16:35 – 17:25 Stop whispering...Start shouting! Towards understanding why group efficiancy is important for social change Martijn van Zomeren, Russell Spears & Colin Wayne Leach 18.00 Amélie’s Birthday Party

Sunday, June 20th

Collective and Individual Responses to Changing Intergroup Relations II 9:00 – 9:50 Reactions to intergroup assistance: The role of perceived stability of power

relations and ingroup commitment Samer Halabi & Arie Nadler 9:55 – 10:45 Empathy and helping: The moderating role of group membership Stefan Stürmer

Coffee Break 11:00 – 11:50 A social identity perspective on the adjustment of international students:

The role of perceived discrimination, intergroup status relations, permeability, legitimacy, and identification

Joanne R. Smith, Deborah J. Terry, Kara J. Pasmore & Rebecca N. Pelly 11:55 – 12:45 Group identification as a strategy to cope with identity change Jolanda Jetten, Alex Haslam, Tom Postmes & Louise Humphrey 12:50 Lunch

Departure

Abstracts

New Ways, New Pain: The Experience of Stigma in Modern Societies

Manuela Barreto, Naomi Ellemers, Sezgin Cihangir & Katherine Stroebe

University of Leiden, The Netherlands

Arguably the only tangible change in intergroup relations that has taken place during the last

decades, and that can be generalised to various contexts, refers to the way prejudice is expressed.

In fact, whether or not they intend to do so, those who are prejudiced can express their

intergroup attitudes in new ways, which are not (yet) recognised as such - these new forms of

prejudice have spread out faster than the norms and sanctions that could control them. Modern

forms of prejudice range from verbal expressions of the belief that discrimination no longer

exists (a characteristic of modern sexism), to non-verbal avoidance behaviours accompanying

what is intended as verbal interest. As a consequence, prejudice nowadays not only remains

unchallenged, but can even pass unnoticed. The work we present in this talk focuses on the

consequences of these new forms of prejudice, with particular emphasis on the target of

prejudice. In particular, we examine how targets of prejudice perceive and experience these new

forms of prejudice, in terms of attributions, emotions, and behaviour. We demonstrate not only

the specific perilous consequences of modern prejudice for the individual target, but also its

impact on the stigmatised group, as well as on the broader social system. We conclude that

prejudice not only is alive and well, but that modern forms of prejudice are uniquely and

particularly damaging, both for the individual and for the group.

Changing Children’s Intergroup Attitudes Towards Minority Groups

Lindsey Cameron1, Adam Rutland1& Rupert Brown2 1University of Kent, Canterbury, U.K. 2University of Sussex, Brighton, U.K.

We will present a series of studies that evaluated interventions to reduce children’s intergroup

bias towards minority groups. Typically, interventions to reduce children’s bias have lacked any

coherent theoretical basis. In contrast, our studies were based on two theories well established

within social and developmental psychology, namely intergroup contact theory (Allport, 1954;

Hewstone & Brown, 1986) and social-cognitive theory (Aboud & Amato, 2001; Bigler, 1995)

respectively. Using these theories we developed interventions to reduce children’s intergroup bias

towards two minority groups. Extended contact (Wright, Aron, McLaughlin-Volpe & Ropp,

1997, Liebkind & McAlister 1999) was used rather than actual contact, given the obvious

practical problems involved in organizing physical contact. Study 1 examined seventy-two 6-9

year old children’s attitudes towards the disabled. An extended contact intervention based upon

story reading was compared with an intervention involving socio-cognitive skills training (Bigler

& Liben, 1992). We used a mixed design - 3 (type of intervention: extended contact, socio-

cognitive skills training, control) x 3 (target disability: physically disabled, learning difficulty, non-

disabled). Results showed that extended contact was the most effective intervention. In Study 2

we attempted to replicate this finding and improve upon Study 1 using a larger sample from a

wider age range (5-11 years). Refugees were used as the minority group, we used a more refined

socio-cognitive skills training intervention and examined the combined effect of our

interventions. The findings of our studies will be discussed in terms of the relative value of

extended contact and socio-cognitive skills training interventions.

The Motives to Deny Personal Discrimination: The Impact of Stereotype Threat and Regulatory Focus

Muriel Dumont1, Tom Postmes2 , Eléonore Seron1 & Vincent Yzerbyt1

1 Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium, 2 University of Exeter, U.K.

It has long been assumed that low levels of discrimination typically reported by members of

devalued groups result from some defensive mechanisms of denying being personally

discriminated against. Evidence for denial, however, is limited and controversial.

Denial of discrimination is empirically examined in this article. It was hypothesized that

threatening contexts trigger personal motives to preserve a positive self-image, which should lead

to avoidance of any further negative stimuli, such as perceptions of being discriminated. In the

first study, we used a stereotype threat manipulation and showed that threatening contexts led to

a denial of personal discrimination. In the second study, we investigated denial by inducing either

self-protective or enhancement motivations.

Results confirmed that those people whose mindset was more defensive or security-oriented

denied being personally discriminated against. In both studies however, group discrimination was

unaffected. Hence, our findings provided the first empirical evidence of denial of personal

discrimination.

A dynamic perspective on social identification: Predictors and consequences of identification during group formation

Kersin Eisenbeiß1 & Sabine Otten2 1University of Jena, Germany, 2 University of Groningen, The Netherlands

Although ingroup identification is a central construct in social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner,

1986), the development of identification has not been investigated so far. Based on an integration

of a social identity and a group development perspective (e.g. Tuckman, 1965; Worchel, 1998), a

theoretical model for a dynamic understanding of identification is developed in the present

article. Two longitudinal studies with student samples tested the theoretical model depicting the

cross-sectional and longitudinal relationships between identification and its relevant predictors

(i.e. uncertainty, interpersonal attraction, self-prototypicality) and consequences (ingroup

favoritism, self-prototypicality) at three measurement points during the first four months of

group formation. The empirical findings across samples confirmed the model and, thus, provided

evidence for the notion that both longitudinal predictors and consequences are differentially

related to identification over time. A third study was conducted in a major airline company to

explore the development of identification in an organizational context. The study was based on a

two-measurement-point design at the beginning and the end of a flight attendant training. The

findings supported the expectation that different foci of identification (i.e. training group

identification and organizational identification) are predicted by different cross-sectional and

longitudinal variables. Finally, the reported results are discussed with regard to their theoretical

and practical implications.

A Theoretical Framework for Making Cross-Cultural and Cross-Time Comparisons

Margaret Foddy1 & Toshio Yamagishi2 1Carleton University, Australia, 2Hokkaido University, Japan

A frequently used quotation in many disciplines is from L.P. Hartley’s 1953 novel, The Go-Between:

“The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there”. When writing a chapter for our

edited book Self and Identity, Yoshi Kashima and I pondered the question of whether historical

changes in self-concept could be compared with cultural differences in self-concept, but we did

not ask about whether such differences might illuminate changes in intergroup relations over

time. Two ideas came out of this discussion—first, social structure is related to self and identity,

which change historically and across cultures; and second, we need a theoretical framework that

facilitates comparisons across time and place. This paper addresses the second issue.

While recognizing the importance of arguments for “indigenous” psychologies, we wish to argue

that there is also a need for general frameworks that allow comparison of societies across time

and place. We argue that two major mechanisms integrate social psychological processes-- social

identity and interdependence. This paper examines how these two ideas can help us to

understand cultural and historical differences. Social identity ensures attachment to the group

and positive affect towards group members; interdependence relies more on generalized

exchange heuristics, which engender beliefs about ingroup fairness, trust in group members, and

mechanisms for inclusion and exclusion of people from a relevant ingroup.

Currently, there is a strong debate between whether the difference between the “East” and the

“West” has any foundation, and if so, what that foundation might be. There are two critical

issues: are there really any differences; and are these differences changing as social structures (and

economic structures) change?

An issue which has received very little attention is whether social scientists can employ the

frameworks used to compare “East” and “West”, to the “Middle East”, an area of increased

importance to both East and West. These questions then raise other comparisons—are Italians

more like Turks, or like Americans? Do Chinese resemble Japanese, or Canadians? Without a

theoretical framework to consider these questions, we cannot make progress.

An important issue is that, if social structures are changing, then so should cultural differences.

We have some cross-cultural evidence, but not really a lot of longitudinal data. If we have a

theoretical framework, we can begin to collect comparative data across time. It is important to

be open to new concepts, and this is one strong challenge of cross-societal work. Structurally

induced changes in intergroup relations are one important window on the question of historical

change.

‚Basking in Reflected Glory’ Between Groups – Conditions for a Positive Intergroup Relation

Katharina Fuchs-Bodde & Amélie Mummendey,

University of Jena, Germany

Research on positive intergroup phenomena such as the positive evaluation of an outgroup

frequently examines the impact of similarity on intergroup relations. However, this branch of

research bears rather inconsistent results: Intergroup similarity seems to have ameliorating, but

also deteriorating effects on intergroup relations. Under which exact conditions the influence of

similarity enhances intergroup relations remains unclear. The present research treats this question

by adapting two concepts from the domain of intergroup relations to the intergroup context. On

the basis of Cialdini’s concept of ‘Basking in Reflected Glory’ and Tesser’s model of Self-

Evaluation Maintenance, it is hypothesized that an ingroup should bask in an outgroup’s good

performance when intergroup similarity is high but the relevance of a comparison dimension is

low. Experiment 1 showed that readiness to support a higher-status outgroup was highest under

the conditions of high similarity and low relevance. Experiment 2 demonstrated the same effects

for positive affect towards the outgroup. The affect mediates the impact of similarity and

relevance on outgroup support. This finding was replicated in experiment 3. The results are

discussed in the frame of previous theories on intergroup relations.

United We Run, Divided We Fail? Effects of Cognitive Merger Representations and Performance Feedbacks on Merging Groups

Steffen Giessner & Amélie Mummendey

University of Jena, Germany

Research has shown that cognitive representations of group mergers influence intergroup

evaluations. However, how these cognitive merger representations interact with merger

performance feedback to affect intergroup evaluations has so far been ignored in this line of

inquiry. Two competing hypotheses were proposed, which made different predictions in case of a

common ingroup salience combined with subgroup salience. The subgroup-salience-hypotheses

predicted that if subgroups are salient during a merger, the pre-merger outgroup will be blamed

in the case of a merger failure. The superordinate-group-salience-hypothesis predicted that if a

common ingroup representation is salient, the pre-merger outgroup will not be blamed in the

case of a merger failure. Study 1 (N=243) confirmed the second hypothesis using a 3 (Merger

Representation: one-group, one-group with subgroup differentiation, two-groups) x 2 (Feedback:

failure, success) design with interacting groups. These results were replicated in Study 2 (N=99)

using an adapted minimal group paradigm. Additionally, outgroup trust was shown to be a key

mediator. Moreover, both studies allowed to track the changes in ingroup bias after the feedback.

Success reduced ingroup bias, whereas a merger failure increased ingroup bias only if no

common ingroup was salient. Study 3 (N=195) was conducted within the natural merger situation

of the German re-unification. Results yielded support for the superordinate-group-salience-

hypothesis within the West-German sample but not within the East-German sample. The results

will be discussed with respect to their theoretical and practical implications on changes in

intergroup relations.

Political Intergroup Relations in Chile: The Role of the Common Ingroup Identity and Intergroup Contact in Promoting Political Attitude Change

Roberto González1, Jorge Manzi1, José L. Saiz2, Pablo de Tezanos1, David Torres1, Nerea Aldunate1& María

Teresa Aravena1

1Escuela de Psicología, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Chile, 2Departamento de Psicología, Universidad de La Frontera, Chile

This paper report the results of a longitudinal project (T1 n = 1416; T2 n = 1273) aimed to test

the stability of the relationship between political identity, intergroup contact and intergroup

attitudes toward political parties which belong to two political coalitions in Chile. The study

analyzed in two waves the stability of group identity threat, conflict and cooperation of parties

within coalitions and the impact of political identity at the political party and coalition level on

cognitive and affective reactions toward: a) their own party b) their outgroup parties within their

own coalition, c) outgroup parties of the opposing coalition (double outgroup), and d) their own

and opposing coalitions as a whole. The study also examined the impact of friendship with

outgroup members and political intergroup contact (amount of contact) on the development of

positive intergroup political attitudes (change) at T1 and T2. Overall, party members of both

coalitions experienced tension, conflict, lack of cooperation and political identity threat at T1 and

T2. Intergroup attitudes were less positive toward coalition partners and even outgroup

favoritism was exhibited, when participants judged them from the party level than from the

coalition level at T1 and T2. However, when asked to change the focus of analyses from the party

to the coalition level of categorization (inclusive level), participants provided evidence of attitude

change: systematic polarized bias in favor of coalition partners was exhibited. As predicted,

making participants judge their coalition partners from the more inclusive level of categorization

reduced the negative effects of perceived internal tension and conflict and promoted positive

intergroup attitudes change by increasing the sense of being members of the same team.

Friendship resulted to be a significant mediator of the effect of intergroup contact on positive

affect toward the political party group and from it to the coalition as a whole only for members

of the right wing coalition.

Changing Intergroup Relations: Effects of Recategorization, Decategorization and Dual Identity on the Reduction of Intergroup

Discrimination

Rita Guerra

NESO-LNEC, Lisboa, Portugal

In order to test the power of different theoretical proposals derived from Social Identity theory

concerning the cognitive processes that underlie the reduction of prejudice, two studies were

conducted.

The first study aimed to test the recent version of the Common Ingroup Identity Model that

introduces the ‘dual identity’ cognitive representation of group members as an alternative to the

‘one-group’ representation of the aggregate and to compare their relative efficacy with the

Decategorisation Model within ethnic low status groups. The experimental design is a 4

(conditions: categorization, recategorization, decategorization and dual identity) X 2 (target-

group: Black ingroup and White outgroup). The dependent variables were two measures of

groups’ social evaluation and one of resource allocation. According to previous research

recategorization and decategorization were effective in the reduction of ingroup favouritism

triggered by the control condition. Contrary to expectations, the dual identity manipulation did

not reduce the ingroup bias observed in the control condition.

The objective of the second study was to clarify the dual identity role on prejudice reduction,

integrating the Mutual Intergroup Differentiation Model contributes. This goal led to a

modification of the experimental procedure of the dual identity operationalisation. The design

was a 3 (conditions: categorization, dual identity with same task, dual identity with different tasks)

X 2 (ethnic status: Portuguese, African) X 2 (target-group: ingroup, outgroup). The same

dependent variables as in study 1 were used. As predicted, dual identity with different tasks

eliminated ingroup favouritism, while dual identity with the same tasks replicated the ingroup bias

found before.

Reactions to Inter-Group Assistance: The Role of Perceived Stability of Power Relations and Ingroup Commitment

Samer Halabi & Arie Nadler

Tel Aviv University, Israel

In a recent analysis of inter-group helping relations Nadler (2002) proposed that groups

create, maintain or challenge power relations between them through helping behaviors. Based on

an integration of findings and concepts from research on pro-social behavior (Nadler & Fisher,

1986; Nadler, 1998) and social identity processes (Branscombe, Ellemers & Doosje, 1999) this

analysis suggests that when power relations between groups are perceived as stable and legitimate,

assistance from the high to the low status group will not pose a threat to social identity. When

however, power relations are perceived by low status group as unstable receiving assistance from

the high status out-group is inconsistent with the group members' quest for equality and will

therefore pose a threat to social identity. This threat is likely to be more pronounced for in-group

members who have a high level of in-group commitment.

Two studies were conducted to examine the effects of receiving help from members of

the high status group under stable and unstable power relations. The first experiment was a

minimal-group study, and the second employed real groups (i.e., Israeli-Arabs and Israeli-Jews

representing low and high power groups in the Israeli society, respectively). Both studies found

support for the hypothesis that highest threat to social identity occurred when the low status

group received assistance from the high status group under unstable power relations conditions.

The third experiment found that receiving help from the high status group poses a greater threat

to the social identity of high than low in-group identifiers.

From Faultlines to Fissions: Understanding the Dissolution of Small Task Groups

Claire Hart & Mark Van Vugt

University of Southampton, U.K.

A key feature of human social organisation is its flexibility. Human groups form, transform,

break-up and reform at a speed that has no parallels in the animal world. Group transformations

can occur in many different forms, but arguably one of the most dramatic changes is group

fission. Group fissions occur when two or more members, in conjunction, leave a parent group

to either form a new group or join an existing group. Examples of group fissions have been

documented in a wide variety of organisational settings, including profit and non-profit

organisations, religious groups, political parties, nation states, traditional hunter-gatherer societies

as well as in non-human societies of primates and social insects. This research investigates the

impact of two important endogenous factors, intragroup conflict and the presence of subgroups,

on group fission. We make hypotheses about the role that subgroup boundaries play in the

fission process, i.e., how they may act as potential faultlines along which groups split after they

experience conflict (the weak faultline hypothesis), or how subgroup boundaries may exacerbate

the likelihood of a fission if conflict is present (strong faultline hypothesis). The results of four

experiments, involving small social dilemma task groups, support the weak faultline hypothesis.

We discuss the implications of these findings for theory and research on membership changes in

small groups.

Group Identification as a Strategy to Cope with Identity Change.

Jolanda Jetten, Alex Haslam, Tom Postmes & Louise Humphrey

University of Exeter, U.K.

It is suggested that because the self is in important ways defined by membership in social groups,

losing an identity or a permanent change to the meaning of the identity is likely to affect the

individual self in important ways. Despite the recognition that identity change can be highly

stressful, limited consideration has been given to the way group identification can buffer against

the negative consequences of change. We predict that the negative consequences of identity

change will be limited when individuals readily take on a new identity. This is because the new

sense of belonging and identification should have a positive effect on long-term well-being. A

longitudinal study was conducted to test this prediction among first year psychology students

starting university. We asked respondents to complete a questionnaire a month before starting

university (Time 1) and again after a few months at university (Time 2).

We found that well-being at Time 2 was negatively affected by (1) perceived incompatibility of

the old and new identity and (2) when participants initially posses only a limited number of

identities (Time 1 measures). Identification as a university student mediated this relation

­perceived incompatibility of the old and new identity increased resistance to identify with other

university students and having initially multiple identities made facilitated new identification,

which accounted for the negative impact on long term well-being. The research thus shows that,

paradoxically, social identification is not only a source of resistant to change but that social

identities also, and at the same time, help to adjust to change.

Change of Ingroup Representations as a Means to Change Outgroup Evaluations?

Maya Machunsky

University of Jena, Germany

According to Self Categorization Theory, a superordinate category (SC), containing ingroup and

outgroup, provides standards and norms on which groups compare each other. The more a

group is perceived as prototypical of the SC the better it is evaluated. Linking these assumptions

to Social Identity Theory, Mummendey and Wenzel (1999) proposed that people project their

own group’s attributes onto the SC. As a result, the ingroup is perceived as more prototypical of

the SC, leading to ingroup favouritism. Building on this theoretical framework, Waldzus,

Mummendey, Wenzel and Weber (2002) predicted and showed that an increase in complexity of

the mental representation of the SC prevents people from projecting and, thus, decreases

outgroup derogation.

In the present research, we approached the reduction of ingroup-favouritism from a different

angle: As one needs a clear image of one’s own group to project, changes in the complexity of the

representation of the ingroup should change the level of projection and, as a consequence, of

ingroup-favouritism. To change the complexity of mental group representations, we used

subgrouping and subtyping manipulations. We hypothesized that subgrouping of the ingroup

should prevent people from projecting whereas subtyping of the ingroup should intensify the

projection process.

In the first two studies, we expected and found more ingroup favouritism in the subtyping

condition compared to a control condition. The subgrouping conditions were not in line with our

hypothesis. In a planned experiment we want to investigate the mental complexity of the ingroup

and the SC in a joint design.

Types of Identification and Intergroup Differentiation in the Russian Federation

Anca Minescu, MSc & Dr. Edwin Poppe

Utrecht University, The Netherlands

The fall of the Soviet Union shattered the established identity patterns and intergroup

relationships among the ethnic populations of Russia. A survey study in ten autonomous

republics investigates processes of intergroup differentiation and the impact of Russians’ and

Titulars’ multiple identifications on intergroup stereotyping.

Given the availability of multiple social identities (with one’s ethnic group, one’s republic and

federal Russia), certain categorical identifications have specific consequences on intergroup

differentiation. As predicted, superordinate identification as ‘republican’ decreased outgroup

negativity and increased ingroup positivity the most, while ethnic identification had most

exclusive effects; however, federal identification had the weakest effects.

Furthermore, the effects of superordinate identifications on ingroup/outgroup stereotypes were

specified by the particular relationships between ethnic identification and the republican and

federal identifications for Titulars and Russians. Republican identification was more outgroup

inclusive and less consequential on ingroup images for Russians than for Titulars; opposite

group-effects were true, though weaker, for the federal identification.

The positions as a republican minority or majority were also predicted to impact relationships

between superordinate identifications and intergroup stereotyping. The expanding boundaries of

superordinate identifications were expected to determine a heightened focus on intergroup

differentiation for minorities than majorities. This was confirmed especially for the republican

identification and less for the federal identification.

The investigations on intergroup differentiation revealed the presence of the positive-negative

asymmetry effect irrespective of ethnic group or numerical position; interestingly, Russian

minorities were most biased on positive items, while Titular minorities on negative items.

Discussions invite to developing a more dynamic model of intergroup differentiation based on

individuals’ social identification at various inclusiveness levels, and indicate the potential double-

edged consequences of republican identification on the stability of intergroup relations in Russia.

Rejection, expulsion and extermination of the evil(s)

Amélie Mummendey1, Jörg Neumann1, Thomas Kessler1 & Sven Waldzus2 1 University of Jena, Germany, 2 ISCTE, Lisbon, Portugal

People in general and social psychology on intergroup relations in particular, are interested in

phenomena like outgroup discrimination and devaluation but also tolerance or even acceptance

of plurality. Central to the analysis is the question of how group members deal with intergroup

difference. Some years ago, we proposed and since then tested the ingroup-projection-model

(IPM) which suggests that social discrimination results from the generalization of ingroup

attributes to the relevant superordinate category being inclusive for both, ingroup and outgroup,

which then become normative criteria for judging the outroup. Tolerance on the other hand is

conceptualised as either lack of inclusion of both groups in a superordinate category or as

representation of this inclusive category as vague or complex. Because then a well defined clear

cut normative standard is missing, difference of an outgroup cannot easily be identified as

deviant.

IPM so far covers the range of more or less acceptance of groups being different from ourselves.

The question remains what is the special surplus of difference which makes ingroup members to

engage actively and explicitly against outgroups. What triggers blatant rejection, persecution and

expulsion from a less, more or even the utmost inclusive category i.e. human mankind? Building

upon IPM, we borrow from Isaiah Berlin’s concepts of positive and negative liberty and propose:

Crucial for interpreting an outgroup’s difference as deviance and threatening as well as

legitimising explicitly negative action against them is the representation of the inclusive category

and its prescriptive attributes in terms of either minimal or maximal goals. The boundaries of

negative liberty are conceived as minimal goal which applies to everybody within the boundaries.

Irrespective of subgroup differences within the inclusive category, they have to be respected by

everybody. Within the boundaries of negative liberty, individuals are positively free to strive for

various maximum goals which can be approached more or less successfully, intensively or whole

heartedly. From an ingroup’s perspective, more or less deviance from own maximal goals might

be more or less valuable. Deviance from an own minimal goal, however, cannot be accepted but

has to be stopped and prevented in future. Difference which is perceived to disrespect the

boundaries of negative liberty and violate minimal goals cannot be maintained as members of the

common inclusive category. Means for preventing deviance which violates minimal goals and

threatens negative liberty obvioulsly are expulsion, persecution and elimination.

Developing a Common Identity Following an Organizational Merger: A Longitudinal Study of the Role of Pre-Merger Group Status and Intergroup

Contact.

Anne T. O’Brien1 & Deborah J.Terry2 1 University of Exeter, Exeter, U.K.

2 University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

In the context of an organizational merger, we investigated the role of pre-merger group status

and intergroup contact in predicting post-merger measures of a new common identity and

intergroup relations. Participants were employees involved in the merger of two scientific

research organizations who were unequal in status. Utilizing a three-wave longitudinal design, we

obtained self-report measures of intergroup contact (quality, quantity, prototypicality) at Time 1,

and of the outcome variables (cognitive representation of, and identification with, the new

merged organization, intergroup anxiety, ingroup bias) at Times 2 and 3. In line with a social

identity approach, pre-merger group status predicted both cognitive and affective measures of the

new merged identity. Employees from the high status pre-merger organization were more likely

to represent the merged organization as a common group and to report higher levels of

identification with the new merged organization. However, for employees from the low status

pre-merger organization, contact quality was positively associated with cognitive representations

of, and identification with a new common identity. High quality contact predicted lower levels of

intergroup anxiety and ingroup bias. The negative relationship between contact quality and

ingroup bias was stronger when the contact was perceived to be with a prototypical outgroup

member and under high amounts of contact. Overall, the findings provide longitudinal evidence

for the importance of considering relative group status and contact quality when facilitating both

re-categorization, and identification with a new merged group and in predicting intergroup

relations after a merger.

The Group-Based Self-Regulation Model: An Explanation of Intergroup Behavior Based on Motivational Processes

Kai Sassenberg

University of Jena, Germany

Collective action is often seen as the key to change in intergroup relations. But how can collective

action occur, when the individual is the unit initiating action? The answer of social identity theory

to this question is: People are acting in terms of the group. Self-categorization theory elaborated

on the cognitive processes guiding the actions in terms of the group. However, the motivational

processes guiding an individual to behave in terms of the group rarely been addressed, yet.

Research on the motivation of intergroup behavior has mainly focused on the content of

motivation by studying the impact of different motives (e.g. the need for positive distinctiveness

and self-esteem in social identity theory). Thus, a group-based self-regulation model is presented

that aims to provide insights into the motivational processes guiding intergroup behavior by

analyzing the interplay of individual and group level factors. The model combines the social

identity approach and self-regulation theories. It predicts that group norms become the goals of

highly identified group members. The self-regulation strategies group members employ, when

pursuing the goals derived from group norms, are influenced by their dominant individual

strategies and those suggested by group characteristics. If strategies from both levels contradict

each other, group identification is reduced. Evidence for this model from a series of studies is

presented. The application of the model to collective action and social change in general are

discussed.

A Social Identity Perspective on the Adjustment of International Students: The Role of Perceived Discrimination, Intergroup Status Relations,

Permeability, Legitimacy, and Identification

Joanne R. Smith, Deborah J. Terry, Kara J. Pasmore & Rebecca N. Pelly

University of Queensland, Australia

Two studies were conducted to examine the ability of the social identity approach to explain

acculturative adjustment in international students. In Study 1, the impact of perceived

discrimination and intergroup status relations on adjustment, and the stress-buffering properties

of national identification and identification as an international student were investigated in a

sample of 118 international students. The perception of high levels of discrimination and low

group status was associated with poorer adjustment. However, strong national and international

student identification moderated the negative effects of high discrimination and low status, but

on different aspects of adjustment. This study highlights that multiple identities operate to reduce

the threats associated with change, thereby facilitating adjustment. Study 2 investigated the

influence of socio-structural beliefs (status, legitimacy, and permeability) on adjustment in a

longitudinal study of 80 Asian international students. As expected, students who perceived their

cultural group to be relatively low in status experienced poorer adjustment. However, the effects

of status were moderated by perceptions of both the permeability of group boundaries and the

legitimacy of the status differential. At high levels of legitimacy, perceptions of permeability were

associated with better adjustment among students who perceived their group to be low in status,

but poorer adjustment among students who perceived their group to be high in status. At low

levels of legitimacy, irrespective of group status position, perceived permeability was not related

to adjustment. Taken together, these studies highlight the contribution of the social identity

approach to the understanding of adjustment during cross-cultural exchange.

Empathy and Helping: The Moderating Role of Group Membership

Stefan Stürmer

University of Kiel, Germany

Two experiments examined the role of empathy in ingroup and outgroup helping. In Experiment

1, 94 male students with a Muslim or a German cultural background were assigned either to an

ingroup helping or an outgroup helping condition. In each condition, participants learned during

a (fictitious) email exchange about another students cultural background and his predicament.

Correlational analyses confirmed that empathy was only a predictor of helping intentions when

the helpee was an ingroup member, r = .62, p < .001, but not when the helpee was an

‚outgrouper‘, r = .09, ns., z = 2.95, p < .01. Experiment 2 focused on a different intergroup

context and included an experimental manipulation of empathy. 77 male heterosexuals were

assigned either to an ingroup or an outgroup condition (i.e., helping either a fictitious

heterosexual or homosexual student). To manipulate empathy, one half of participants was asked

to take the perspective of the other student; the remaining participants did not receive further

instructions (control conditions). Analyses in the control conditions replicated the results of

Experiment 1. Furthermore, perspective-taking instructions actually led to the expected increase

of the empathy-helping correlation in the out-group condition, r = .51, p < .05, so that the

difference between the ingroup, r = .54, p < .05, and outgroup helping conditions was no longer

significant, z = 0.11, ns. The practical implications of these findings for strategies to increase

outgroup helping are discussed.

Changing Identities and Intergroup Processes amongst Welsh Rugby Supporters

Rob Thomson

University of Glamorgan, U.K.

For many sports fans, an important part of their self-concept is related to their identity as a

supporter of a specific club or team. This paper will examine the nature of changing supporter

allegiances, boundaries and intergroup rivalries among Welsh rugby supporters. This group of

supporters is particularly interesting because traditional club boundaries have recently been

redefined. This created a unique research opportunity to examine longitudinally the effects of

changing boundaries on traditional patterns of identification. This current project is examining

whether and how supporters transfer their allegiances from a previous club to a new regional

team. Furthermore, the development of new intergroup rivalries and allegiances will also be

investigated. Another interesting issue is that some of these new regional teams consist of

existing clubs, whilst others will be new entities created by the merging of two clubs. This allows

direct comparison between supporters that continue support for existing teams and supporters

that have to transfer their support to a new team. In this paper the preliminary findings will be

presented and the implications for social identity and intergroup theory discussed.

Ethnic Enclaves and the Dynamics of Social Identity

Colette van Laar1, Jim Sidanius2, Shana Levin3 & Stacey Sinclair4

1 Leiden University, The Netherlands, 2 University of California, Los Angeles, USA, 3 Claremont McKenna College USA, 4 University of Virginia, USA

Multicultural settings are often characterized by segregation of ethnic groups into neighborhoods,

schools, and work settings. Socially too, individuals separate into clubs with ingroup members.

Considerable theoretical discussion has focused on the benefits and costs of such segregation for

social identity, well-being and intergroup harmony. On the one hand involvement in ethnically-

oriented organizations among members of minority groups can serve as a conduit for

involvement in broader societal activities. On the other hand, to the extent that such activities

stimulate ethnic identity, they are likely to increase ethnic segregation and ethnocentric bias. The

focus of these discussions is, however, usually on the effects of minority organizations. We argue

that similar organizations exist for majority individuals and that these can be expected to have

similar effects.

We explored the intergroup antecedents and consequences of membership in ethnic

organizations among minority students and in segregated fraternities and sororities among White

students using a five-wave panel study at a major, multiethnic university. The results showed that

the effects of the organizations were similar, but not identical for minority and White students.

Such segregation had the expected effects for minorities: increased ethnic identity and sense of

ethnic victimization, and increased willingness toward social action, but not increasing outgroup

hostility. Among White students, membership increased the sense that Whites were victims of

ethnic discrimination, increased antipathy and decreased willingness to form friendships with

minorities. Consistent with social identity theory, at least a portion of these effects were mediated

by social identity in both groups.

Stop Whispering… Start Shouting! Towards Understanding Why Group

Efficacy Is Important For Collective Action

Martijn van Zomeren1, Russell Spears2 & Colin Wayne Leach3 1University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands ,2University of Cardiff, U.K.

3University of California, Santa Cruz, USA

On the basis of a specific integration of theories on intergroup relations and emotions

and the results of three experiments (Van Zomeren, Spears, Fischer, & Leach, 2004), we present

a follow-up experiment (N = 220) with deprived low status group members in which we

manipulated procedural unfairness (yes / no), group efficacy (high / low), and an audience factor

(ingroup / outgroup) to examine their effects on intergroup anger and collective action

tendencies. We extend the argument made in Van Zomeren et al. (2004) that the group efficacy

pathway (in contrast to the intergroup anger pathway) is very important in predicting collective action

tendencies of deprived low status group members because it focuses on the problem rather than

the emotion (Lazarus, 1991). Therefore, group efficacy should be less susceptible to audience

concerns than intergroup anger. Hence we predicted that group efficacy would only be affected by

the group efficacy manipulation, whereas intergroup anger would be affected by procedural

unfairness, group efficacy and audience concerns. The results showed that intergroup anger, and

not group efficacy, was affected by the predicted three-way interaction. Moreover, intergroup

anger and group efficacy both predicted collective action tendencies. These results suggest that

the group efficacy pathway to collective action tendencies is indeed less susceptible to audience

concerns than the intergroup anger pathway, and hence more effective to raise collective action

tendencies. The results are discussed in relation to social identity theory, relative deprivation

theory, and the social identity model of deindividuation

Reducing Prejudice and Undermining Collective Action: A Dilemma for Social Change

Stephen C. Wright & Micah Lubensky

University of California, Santa Cruz, USA

An enormous amount of social psychological research and theory has considered the

antecedents, processes, and consequences of prejudice. For some, the goal of reducing prejudice

is explicit, and even when not explicitly stated, there are often clear messages about the

importance of prejudice reduction. Of course, this focus makes excellent sense. Prejudice

provide the basis for numerous and often terrible social problems. Similarly, for social

psychological research on collective action/social protest increasing social justice and improving

intergroup relations has been an apparent or implied motive. Interestingly, these two lines of

research have seldom been considered simultaneously. Perhaps this is not surprising. Work on

prejudice has focused almost exclusively on the advantaged group – the group with power to turn

prejudice into discrimination. Conversely, collective action research focuses on the disadvantaged

group. We will consider a dilemma that arises when these two research traditions are considered

together. Many of the same psychological mechanism are implicated in both. Superordinate

goals, cross-cutting categorization, intergroup contact, and other strategies are thought to reduce

prejudice, in part, by: reducing differentiation between groups; reducing ingroup identification

and commitment to the ingroup values; and decreasing negative characterizations of the

outgroup. However, generating collective action appears to require clear group differentiation,

strong ingroup identification, and recognition that the outgroup is the perpetrator of social

injustice. Collective action and prejudice reduction appear to require precisely the opposite

psychological state. We will present data from two survey studies and an experiment showing

that, among disadvantaged group members, positive intergroup contact is associated with both a

decrease in prejudice towards the advantaged outgroup and a decrease in endorsement of social

protest and collective action.