Through their efforts, a rough sketch has become a richly textured portrait of social psychology on the threshold of the 21st century. Finally, we are indebted to three scholars whose seminal works shaped the field of intergroup relations in the 20th century and who thereby influenced each of the chapters here.
1 Introduction
For example, in 1986 David Wilder published an influential article entitled "Social Categorization: Implications for the Creation and Reduction of Intergroup Bias," in which he comments that "categorization itself sets the individual on the path to bias" (p. 292). The path to bias' is said to pass through three important trigger points: activation, construction, and discrimination (see Bodenhausen, Macrae, & Garst, 1998).
2 Activation
This argument has been extended (Fiske, 1993) to account for the way in which power differentials affect categorization. This brings us to the self-categorization theory (SCT) analysis of category activation, or "salience," in which features of the current comparative context play a crucial role (Oakes, 1987).
3 Construal
A development of this basic finding of emphasis has been the exploration of the outgroup homogeneity effect. The interpretation of the black actor's behavior was guided by the content of the category that defined blacks as "impulsive and given to crime and violence" (Duncan, 1976, p. 591).
4 Discrimination
As active participants in the political processes of social life, we may well want to reject and protest the "participatory perceiver view" in Duncan's study, but this is a political, not a psychological, issue. For present purposes we will simply note that the intergroup literature is replete with attempts to psychologize intergroup conflict by misapplying aspects of social identity analysis (see Turner, in press).
5 Conclusions: Categorization and Intergroup Conflict
In this chapter, I argued for an analysis of categorization that, in my opinion, enables social psychology to do this. Another look at the effects of appropriateness and novelty on the salience of social categories.
Stereotype Content
This section briefly addresses the issue of stereotype accuracy and the debates about whether a "core of truth" underlies the content of stereotypes. Perceptions of outgroups are particularly vulnerable to the cognitive effects of negative and extreme behaviour.
Stereotype Structures
Exemplary models suggest that mental representations involve variability—that is, multiple discrete instances of a category—rather than typicality and homogeneity, as is the case with prototypical models ( Linville, Fischer, & Salovey, 1989 ). According to prototype and exemplar models, perceivers make inferences about the attributes of targets associated with a typical member (prototype) or discrete instance (exemplar) of a general category.
Stereotyping Processes
Gordon Allport's (1954) The Nature of Prejudice elaborated on Lippmann's theme of simplifying the world, introducing a cognitive perspective to stereotype literature. According to process accounting, people change their stereotypes gradually over time, pursuing targets that do not match the categories and incorporating new information into that category.
Stereotype Context
Some explanations for the phenomenon suggest that members of disadvantaged groups accept the status quo when they see that their social or institutional context follows appropriate social justice standards (Major, 1994; Martin, 1986). Although people throughout the social hierarchy may accept the status quo, members of low-status groups do not necessarily internalize negative stereotypes (see Crocker, Major, & Steele, 1998, for review).
Conclusion
Change in stereotypic perceptions of familiar and unfamiliar groups: The pervasiveness of the subtyping model. Memory for expectancy-congruent and expectancy-incongruent information: A review of the social and social developmental literature.
Individuation and Decategorization
The presence of borderline markers in quartiles of the scale varied systematically between subjects. The effects of verbal and visual boundary markers were each significant and additive. In contrast to the guidelines for subtypes, the multiattribute nature of stimulus persons was emphasized.
Group Boundaries and Stereotype Change
In the author's opinion, there is no magic bullet yet to overcome unfavorable, simplistic images of the outgroup. An experimental analysis of the contrast effect and its implications for intergroup communication and indirect attitude assessment. Effects of complexity and extremity of social prototypes on perceptions of individual category members.
1 Conceptual and Measurement Issues
A discussion of measurement techniques leads to the question of how children's bias differs from adult bias. Moreover, the emotional basis of children's prejudice is less likely to be anger and hostility and more likely to be suspicion, fear, sadness, and expectations or predictions of rejection, harm, and avoidance. Studies have found that responses to children's social desirability scales are unrelated to prejudice.
2 Documenting the Development of Prejudice, Ethnic Categorization, and Intergroup Peer Relations
Age was also an important variable in that White children in particular had fewer cross-racial friends with age (DuBois & Hirsch, 1990; Hallinan & Teixeira, 1987; Shrum, Cheek, & Hunter, 1988). How should we account for the decline in cross-racial friendships during pre- and early adolescence when there is no evidence for increasing prejudice at this age. There is also little evidence that cross-race friendships lack an important quality of same-race friendships (Aboud & Mendelson, 1999).
3 Explanatory Frameworks: How the Theories Stack Up
Respect for the opposing viewer and personal involvement, rather than simply anti-stereotyping information, may be necessary to change children's attitudes (Madge, 1976; Moe, Nacoste, & Insko, 1981). If children's attitudes are related to ethnic self-identification, we would ask: Why is preoperational thinking sufficient for majority children to infer identification and preference within the group? Exploring children's prejudices: a consideration of the ethical and methodological issues raised by research and curriculum development.
1 The Minimal Group Paradigm and the Tajfel Matrices
The second part of the chapter discusses what we consider the basic allocation strategies adopted by group members to distribute resources between group members and outsiders within laboratory and field situations. Postexperimental questionnaires have been used in various MGP studies to verify the concordance between participants' self-reported use and actual use of distribution strategies as measured by Tajfel matrices. Tajfel matrices have been successfully adapted for use in various laboratory and field environments.
2 Fundamental Orientations in Resource Allocations
Psychological and Sociostructural Correlates of Allocation Strategies
The clearest case of the combined strategies of equality and outgroup favoritism depicted in Figure 5.2D was also taken by Sachdev and Bourhis (1991). Although maximum joint profit (MJP) is a more economically rational allocation strategy than equity, the results of classical studies of MGP rarely obtain the combination of parity (P) and maximum joint profit (MJP) responses shown in Figure 5.2E. Members of the no-power group (0%) did not discriminate at all, eliminating the classic MGP effect and confirming that usable power is a necessary condition for effective discrimination (Ng, 1981).
Alternative Explanations of the MGP Discrimination Effect
Taken together, these results show that in-group identification (SIT) is a better explanation of discrimination in MGP than self-interest and interdependence as assumed within BIM. The failure to obtain the “minimal effect of group discrimination” on allocations of negative outcomes poses a challenge to the generality of social identity theory (SIT) as an “explanation” of discrimination in MGP. Why group members do not discriminate distributions of negative outcomes in MGP.
Concluding Note
Intergroup discrimination and self-esteem in the minimal group paradigm.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppres- sion.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. A second reply to Bornstein, Crum, Wittenbraker, Harring, Insko, and Thibaut on the measurement of social orientations.
Introduction
Discrimination as Social Interaction
In this case, the target is considered equal to the other members of the primary category and therefore entitled to the same treatment. In other words, social discrimination as an interactional phenomenon is characterized by a lack of consensus about the fit (Oakes, 1987) of the given social categorization in the respective social context. The reflection on the distinction between differentiation and discrimination has already implied that the quality of the "treatment" that can be considered discrimination needs a careful analysis.
Determinants of Social Discrimination Collective beliefs and social norms
Looking from the perspective of the actor, we can see essentially three types of differentiation between the ingroup and the outgroup, differing in terms of the intentionality of the outgroup. Similar to actors who differ in terms of the purpose of social differentiation, targets may either not realize unequal treatment, or accept it as normatively adequate, or, on the contrary, feel discriminated against. Beliefs about the socio-structural characteristics of intergroup relations are expected to influence the choice of coping strategies.
Conclusions
With this conception of social dis- crimination as social interaction we obviously do not intend to “define away” the social problem but to clarify the psychological processes breeding it. As Staub (1989) convincingly demonstrates, even “the roots of evil” could not generate such extreme cases as dehumanization or genocide in a society, if a vast majority would not yield more or less direct support to the whole elimination machinery. Accountability in the Minimal Group Paradigm: Implica- tions for aversive discrimination and social identity theory.
The Theories: Similarities and Differences
Contrary to many assessments, the basic psychological idea of SIT was not the distinction between personal and social identity. The distinction between personal and social identity was the beginning of SCT and was not made until the late 1970s. Thus, attributing the distinction between personal and social identity (and the hypothesis that the shift from personal to social identity transforms individuals' behavior into group behavior) to SIT works to strip SCT of its core idea.
Themes and Controversies
Only when positive in-group distinctiveness is threatened (e.g. due to minority or precarious low status) does in-group favoritism occur in the negative domain. In-group favoritism (as “bias”) is assumed to always accompany in-group and out-group categorization, regardless of the specific nature of the intergroup relationship. Responses were ingroup favoritism on (a) positive ingroup traits and (b) negative outgroup traits and outgroup favoritism on (a) positive outgroup traits and (b ) negative traits that were characteristic of their group.
Social Identity: Implications and Future Directions
Were social identity processes ever intended to provide exclusive or comprehensive explanations of human social conflict. What does one need to explain human intergroup conflict and how does social identity analysis fit into the picture. We have a lot of work that is relevant to the main elements of the picture and the social identity perspective is central to it.
Domain and Definitions
Part of this may be due to differences in procedures between studies and, in particular, differences in the manipulation of affective states. In a typical experiment, affect is induced and subjects then read about or interact with an outgroup member (or members). Thus, affect manipulation is usually independent of the outgroup (incidental affect) rather than caused by the outgroup (integral affect; Bodenhausen, 1993).
The Impact of Affect on Bias: Explanations and Literature Review
Moreover, the direction of the effect will be consistent with the valence of the mood state. Thus, subjects made more stereotypic judgments of the target outgroup member when his behavior matched outgroup expectations. In an intergroup situation, affect can distract a perceiver from outgroup behavior.
A Two-Step Model Linking Affect and Intergroup Bias
Furthermore, self-reported anxiety was significantly associated with judgments assimilating deviant behavior toward the majority. Much of the research looking at affect and bias has compared pleasant (happy) versus unpleasant (sad, angry) moods. As discussed by Bless et al. in press), this may be due to the greater threat inherent in negative affect (especially anxiety and fear).
Implications for Intergroup Contact
If we apply research on affect and bias to the contact situation, we immediately stumble. For example, see Allport's (1954) discussion of projection.) In a complementary way, the influence generated by the outgroup can affect judgments of the ingroup. One direction that may prove fruitful is to extend the current research beyond examining how affect affects judgments of outgroups to a broader consideration of the influence of affect on judgments of ingroup and outgroup couples.
Implicit and Explicit Attitudes
Explicit attitudes and stereotypes operate in a conscious manner and are exemplified by traditional, self-report measures of these constructs (see Dovidio, Brigham, Johnson, & Gaertner, 1996). Implicit attitudes and stereotypes, in contrast, are evaluations and beliefs that are automatically activated by the mere (actual or symbolic) presence of the attitude object. These techniques for assessing automatic activation offer different conceptual and empirical perspectives on both attitudes and stereotypes than traditional self-report measures.
Complex Attitudes
In their model of dual attitudes, Wilson et al. 2000) further identify how and when implicit and explicit attitudes can influence behavior. The dual attitudes model of Wilson et al. (2000) and the MODE model of Fazio (1990) provide comprehensive and integrative frameworks for understanding the relationship between implicit and explicit attitudes and their consequences. Second, because of the nature of contemporary racial attitudes, this is a phenomenon where implicit and explicit attitudes are likely to diverge.
The Case of Racial Attitudes
In the next section, we examine the relationship between implicit and explicit measures of racial attitudes. Other theoretical perspectives on contemporary racism also imply a relatively weak connection between implicit and explicit attitudes. Additional attention can also be given to the nature of the implicit and explicit measures.
