Social Psychology Of Intergroup Relations Research Paper

Within social psychology, theory and research on intergroup relations encompasses two major research traditions. One is the theory of social categorization and social identity which focuses on the processes underlying the formation of ingroup and outgroup differentiation and discrimination. The other is research on the ‘contact hypothesis,’ which focuses on understanding the conditions that promote or reduce intergroup bias and discrimination. In recent years, these two traditions have been merged into a more comprehensive perspective on the origins of intergroup discrimination and reduction of prejudice.

1. Social Categorization And The Ingroup–Outgroup Schema

One perspective on intergroup relations is provided by social identity theory, as articulated by Tajfel (1978). In brief, social identity theory represents the convergence of two earlier traditions in the study of intergroup attitudes and behavior—social categorization (e.g., Doise 1978) and social comparison (e.g., Pettigrew 1967). The theoretical perspective rests on two basic premises:

(a) Individuals organize their understanding of the social world on the basis of categorical distinctions that transform continuous variables into discrete classes; categorization has the effect of minimizing perceived differences within categories and accentuating intercategory differences.

(b) Since individual persons are themselves members of some social categories and not others, social categorization carries with it implicit ingroup– outgroup (we–they) distinctions; because of the selfrelevance of social categories, the ingroup–outgroup classification is a superimposed category distinction with affective and emotional significance.

These two premises provide a framework for conceptualizing any social situation in which a particular ingroup–outgroup categorization is made salient. In effect, the theory posits a basic intergroup schema with the following characteristic features:

(a) Assimilation within category boundaries and contrast between categories such that all members of the ingroup are perceived to be more similar to the self than members of the outgroup (the intergroup accentuation principle).

(b) Positive affect (trust, liking) selectively generalized to fellow ingroup members but not outgroup members (the ingroup fa oritism principle).

(c) Intergroup social comparison associated with perceived negative interdependence between ingroup and outgroup (the social competition principle).

The affective and behavioral consequences of this schema lead to intergroup situations characterized by preferential treatment of ingroup members, mutual distrust between ingroup and outgroup, and intergroup competition. According to this theoretical perspective, the starting point for intergroup discrimination and prejudice is a cognitive representation of the social situation in which a particular categorical distinction is highly salient.

1.1 Behavioral Consequences Of Ingroup–Outgroup Differentiation

The role of category salience in intergroup bias has been well documented in experimental research using the ‘minimal intergroup paradigm’ (Brewer 1979, Tajfel 1978). These experiments have demonstrated that merely categorizing individuals into two arbitrary, but distinct, social groupings is sufficient to elicit discriminatory evaluations and behavior (ingroup bias). The tendency to favor members of one’s ingroup over outgroup members has been demonstrated in many different forms, including evaluative biases (attributing more positive characteristics to ingroup members than outgroup members), attributional biases (holding outgroup members more responsible for negative outcomes and giving ingroup members more credit for positive outcomes), allocation biases (distributing more positive rewards and credits to ingroup members than to outgroup individuals), and interaction biases (greater cooperation toward ingroup members and competition toward outgroup members).

Outside the laboratory, the apparently universal tendency for human beings to differentiate themselves according to group membership has been widely recognized. In 1906, William Graham Sumner coined the term ethnocentrism to refer to people’s attachment to ingroups and their preference for everything associated with the ingroup over that of outgroups. Ethnocentric attachment underlies group loyalty, adherence to ingroup norms, and trustworthiness in dealings with fellow group members. At the same time, it sets the stage for intergroup competition, hostility, and conflict (LeVine and Campbell 1972).

1.2 Theories Of Ingroup Bias

Although ingroup–outgroup discrimination is the defining characteristic of intergroup behavior and documented in many forms, a central concern of intergroup relations researchers is understanding the cognitive and motivational processes that underlie and fuel ethnocentric preference and discrimination. Some theoretical perspectives on this issue come from outside social psychology. These include sociobiological theories that postulate a genetic disposition to behave differentially toward ‘insiders’ (kin and extended family) vs. ‘outsiders’ (nonkin) as a strategy of inclusive fitness, and various psychoanalytic theoretical perspectives derived from Freud’s analysis of group psychology (see also Adorno et al. 1950).

Social structural theories emphasize the role of realistic conflict between groups derived from competition over scarce resources (e.g., Sherif 1966). The basic premise of realistic group conflict theory is that intergroup attitudes and behavior reflect group interests. Where these are incompatible—where what one group gains is at the expense of another—the social psychological response is negative intergroup attitudes and hostile behavior. When group goals are compatible, the intergroup atmosphere should be more positive, characterized by tolerance and amicability. Within a given sociopolitical system, group conflicts of interests are most likely to be manifest in struggles for recognition, status, and power (e.g., Sidanius and Pratto 1999). Hence, a substantial amount of research in the intergroup relations arena has been devoted to understanding the relationship between intergroup differences in status and power and intergroup discrimination and bias.

Although realistic conflict may provide a sufficient condition for the emergence of negative intergroup relations, most social psychological theories question the assumption that realistic competition is a necessary condition for ingroup favoritism and intergroup discrimination. These theories hold that ingroup– outgroup differentiation and associated preferences serve basic human motives that are independent of competition over tangible resources. The original social identity theory perspective held that achieving positive distinctiveness of one’s ingroup in the context of intergroup social comparison serves to maintain and enhance self-esteem. This idea has given rise to the concept of Collective self-esteem, self-worth derived from membership in valued groups. The relationship between self-esteem and ingroup bias has proved to be a complex one. Results of cumulative studies suggest that personal self-esteem and collective self-esteem may have different relationships to intergroup discrimination. Ingroup bias may be motivated by the need to restore or enhance collective self-esteem, but particularly for those individuals who are already high in personal self-esteem.

Another motivational theory of ingroup identification and intergroup discrimination gives primacy to the need to reduce uncertainty in social situations. According to this perspective, ingroup–outgroup differentiation provides a basis for assigning meaning and structure to otherwise ambiguous social information and provides the individual with guidance and rules for social behavior and decision making. Intergroup discrimination serves to enhance differentiation and achieve greater certainty, particularly when uncertainty has been aroused. Finally, yet another motivational theory of ingroup identification and differentiation from outgroups is based on the idea that social groups meet human needs for inclusion and differentiation as basic social motives. Ingroup membership provides for secure inclusion at the same time that intergroup boundaries serve the need for differentiation and distinctiveness.

2. Intergroup Contact And Cooperation

Whereas theories of ingroup identification and ingroup–outgroup differentiation provide a basis for understanding and explaining intergroup discrimination, another focus of social psychological research has been on identifying conditions for controlling or reducing the prejudicial effects of ingroup–outgroup distinctions. The so-called ‘contact hypothesis’ is actually a general set of ideas about reducing intergroup prejudice and discrimination that developed among social scientists in the 1940s in the context of inter-racial relations in the US. Although the general idea was expressed in earlier forms, credit for the full contact hypothesis is most frequently accorded to Gordon Allport as a consequence of his presentation in his influential book, The Nature of Prejudice (1954). The basic idea behind the hypothesis is that hostility between groups is fed by unfamiliarity and separation and that under the right conditions, contact among members of different groups will reduce hostility and promote more positive intergroup attitudes.

Specification of the ‘right conditions’ for positive contact constitutes a key part of the fully elaborated contact hypothesis. According to Allport (1954), the four most important of these qualifying conditions were (a) integration has the support of authority, fostering social norms that favor intergroup acceptance, (b) the situation has high ‘acquaintance potential,’ promoting intimate contact among members of both groups, (c) the contact situation promotes equal status interactions among members of the social groups, and (d) the situation creates conditions of cooperative interdependence among members of both groups. Each of these conditions was derived from results of early research on racial desegregation and intergroup contact in the US, on which the hypothesis was initially based (Miller and Brewer 1984, Pettigrew 1998).

2.1 The Robber’s Cave Experiment

Of the contact conditions specified by Allport, the one that has received the most attention and research since the 1950s is the stipulation regarding cooperative interdependence between members of different social groups in the contact situation. This focus is due in large part to the influence of the now classic field experiment conducted by Muzafer Sherif and his colleagues in the summer of 1954 in a boys’ camp in Robbers Cave, Oklahoma (Sherif 1966). After successfully creating two rival groups at the campsite, the researchers tested conditions for reducing the intensity of intergroup conflict and ingroup bias among the campers. Having demonstrated that contact under neutral conditions alone failed to have any positive effects, the research team then introduced a series of superordinate goals that brought the two groups together under conditions of mutual interdependence and shared outcomes. The descriptive record and systematic measures taken by the researchers provide rich documentation of the effectiveness of cooperative interaction in reducing conflict and promoting crossgroup friendships by the close of the summer camp experience.

From Robbers Cave onward, many field studies of intergroup contact have confirmed that intergroup cooperation leads to more friendliness and less ingroup bias than situations that do not promote or require cooperative interaction. Probably the most extensive application of the contact hypothesis has been the implementation of cooperative learning programs in desegregated school classrooms. Different methods of cooperative learning strategies have been devised, but all incorporate basic principles of the contact hypothesis (Miller and Brewer 1984). There is a sizable body of evidence from these settings that demonstrates the effectiveness of cooperative learning groups for increasing attraction and interaction between members of different social categories. Metaanalyses of studies in ethnically mixed classrooms confirm the superiority of cooperative learning methods over individualistic or competitive learning in promoting cross-ethnic friendships and reduced prejudice.

2.2 Laboratory Experiments: Defining The Limits Of The Contact Effect

The elements of the Robbers Cave experiment also provided a prototype for subsequent laboratory experiments on the contact hypothesis and its moderating conditions. The basic laboratory paradigm is essentially a scaled-down version of the summer camp model. Participants in a laboratory session are first divided arbitrarily into two separate groups or social categories and given an opportunity to form distinct ingroup identities. The presence of ingroup bias and outgroup derogation is assessed at the end of this stage, and then members of the two groups are brought into contact under conditions that are experimentally manipulated to test features of the contact hypothesis and its underlying assumptions.

A brief review of these laboratory experiments identifies a number of factors that either inhibit or facilitate the effectiveness of contact to reduce ingroup–outgroup biases and promote positive attitudes toward outgroup members. Among the moderating variables confirmed by experimental studies are the frequency and duration of intergroup interaction, the presence of intergroup anxiety, the structure of cooperative tasks, the outcome of cooperation, and status equalization. In general, results of laboratory experiments confirm the premises of the contact hypothesis but also indicate the complexity—and potential fragility—of effects of intergroup contact even under highly controlled conditions.

In what is probably the most comprehensive laboratory test of inter-racial contact effects, Stuart Cook (see Miller and Brewer 1984) conducted a series of experiments in which highly prejudiced white subjects worked with a black confederate in an ideal contact situation (equal status, cooperative interdependence, with high acquaintance potential and egalitarian social norms) over an extended period of time. Perceptions of the black co-worker were measured at the completion of the contact experience, and general racial attitudes were assessed before, immediately after, and up to three years following the experimental sessions. Across all variations of this experiment, white participants displayed predominantly positive behaviors toward their black co-worker and expressed highly favorable evaluations in the post-experimental questionnaires. Whether liking for this individual member of the outgroup resulted in changed attitudes toward blacks and race-related issues, however, varied across the experiments and for different attitude measures.

One major reason why generalization fails is that the newly positively valued outgroup member is regarded as an exception and not typical or representative of the outgroup in general. In Cook’s studies, significant differences in post-contact attitude change among those who participated in the contact experience compared to control subjects were obtained only in an initial experiment in which what Cook referred to as a ‘cognitive booster’ was introduced during the course of the experiment. This added element was a guided conversation (led by a research confederate) in which the negative effects of discriminatory policies and practices were directly connected to the now-liked black co-worker. This booster served to make salient the co-worker’s category membership and to establish a link between feelings toward this individual and members of the group as a whole. This explicit linkage appears to be a necessary mechanism for the effects of contact experiences to be generalized.

3. Combining Categorization And Contact: Models For Reducing Intergroup Discrimination

A significant advance toward a more integrative theory of intergroup relations was achieved when contact research was combined with concepts of social categorization and social identity theory to provide a theoretical framework for understanding the cognitive mechanisms by which cooperative contact is presumed to work (see Miller and Brewer 1984, Hewstone and Brown 1986). From the social categorization perspective, the issue to be addressed is how intergroup contact and cooperation can be structured so as to alter cognitive representations in ways that would eliminate one or more of the basic features of the negative intergroup schema. Based on the premises of social identity theory, three alternative models for contact effects have been developed and tested in experimental and field settings.

3.1 Decategorization: The Personalization Model

According to the premises of social identity theory, a primary consequence of salient ingroup–outgroup categorization is the depersonalization of members of the outgroup. Social behavior in intergroup situations is characterized by a tendency to treat individual members of the outgroup as undifferentiated representatives of a unified social category, ignoring individual differences within the group. This perspective on the contact situation implies that intergroup interactions should be structured so as to reduce the salience of category distinctions and promote opportunities to get to know outgroup members as individual persons.

The conditional specifications of the contact hypothesis (equal status, intimate, cooperative interaction) can be interpreted as features of the situation that reduce category salience and promote more differentiated and personalized representations of the participants in the contact setting. Attending to personal characteristics of group members not only provides the opportunity to disconfirm category stereotypes, it also breaks down the monolithic perception of the outgroup as a homogeneous unit. Repeated personalized contacts with a variety of outgroup members should, over time, undermine the value and meaningfulness of the social category stereotype as a source of information about members of that group. This is the process by which contact experiences are expected to generalize—via reducing the salience and meaning of social categorization in the long run.

The personalization model is supported by the early empirical evidence for the effects of extended, intimate contact on racial attitudes. More recently, extensive data on effects of intergroup friendships have been derived from surveys in Western Europe regarding attitudes toward minority immigrant groups. Across samples in France, Great Britain, the Netherlands, and Germany, Europeans with outgroup friends scored significantly lower on measures of prejudice, particularly affective prejudice (Pettigrew 1998). This positive relationship did not hold for other types of contact (work or residential) that did not involve the formation of close personal relationships with members of the outgroup.

3.2 Recategorization: The Common Ingroup Identity Model

The second social categorization model of intergroup contact and prejudice reduction is also based on the premise that reducing the salience of ingroup– outgroup category distinctions is key to positive effects. In contrast to the decategorization approach, however, recategorization is not designed to reduce or eliminate categorization. Instead, the goal is to create a superordinate category that encompasses both ingroup and outgroup in a single social group representation. This approach to the reduction of intergroup discrimination is known as the Common Ingroup Identity Model (Gaertner et al. 1993). It is based on the premise that when a superordinate category has been made salient, group members are more likely to think of themselves as one unit rather than two separate groups. When this form of recategorization is successful, ingroup loyalties are transferred from the original subgroups to the common social group as a whole.

The common ingroup identity model has been tested extensively in laboratory experiments assessing the conditions under which two previously segregated work groups can be successfully merged in a superordinate team. The experimental manipulations in these studies focus on situational variables that reduce the perceptual salience of ingroup–outgroup categorizations during the cooperative contact. Conditions that enhance the salience of the common team identity and reduce the salience of subgroup categories are found to diminish or eliminate ingroup–outgroup biases in the evaluation of fellow team members. To the extent that participants perceive the combined team as a single entity, rather than two separate groups, evaluations of former outgroup members become more positive.

3.3 The Mutual Differentiation Model And Dual Identities

Although the structural representations of the contact situation advocated by the decategorization (personalization) and recategorization (common ingroup identity) models are different, the two approaches share common assumptions about the need to reduce category differentiation and associated processes. In fact, the underlying processes may be complementary in that personalized interactions facilitate common ingroup identity and shared ingroup membership promotes positive interpersonal relationships. Because both models rely on reducing or eliminating the salience of intergroup differentiation, they involve structuring contact in a way that will challenge or threaten existing social identities. Both cognitive and motivational factors conspire to create resistance to the dissolution of category boundaries or to reestablish category distinctions across time. Although the salience of a common superordinate identity or personalized representations may be enhanced in the short run, these may be difficult to maintain across time and social situations.

Pre-existing social–structural relationships between groups may also create strong forces of resistance to changes in category boundaries. Cognitive restructuring may be close to impossible (at least as a first step) for groups already engaged in deadly hostilities. Even in the absence of overt conflict, asymmetries between social groups in size, power, or status create additional sources of resistance. When one group is substantially numerically smaller than the other in the contact situation, the minority category is especially salient and minority group members may be particularly reluctant to accept a superordinate category identity that is dominated by the other group. Another major challenge is created by pre-existing status differences between groups, where members of both high and low status groups may be threatened by contact and assimilation.

These challenges to processes of decategorization recategorization led Hewstone and Brown (1986) to recommend an alternative approach to intergroup contact wherein cooperative interactions between groups are introduced without degrading the original ingroup–outgroup categorization. In order to promote positive intergroup experience, Hewstone and Brown recommended that the contact situation be structured so that members of the respective groups have distinct but complementary roles to contribute toward common goals. In this way, both groups can maintain positive distinctiveness within a cooperative framework.

Although ingroup–outgroup category salience is usually associated with ingroup bias and the negative side of intergroup attitudes, cooperative interdependence is assumed to override the negative intergroup schema, particularly if the two groups have differentiated, complementary roles to play. Because it capitalizes on needs for distinctive social identities, the mutual differentiation model provides a solution that is highly stable in terms of the cognitive-structural aspects of the intergroup situation. On the other hand, this model of intergroup contact also reinforces the perception that the two groups are distinctly different and thus perpetuates ingroup–outgroup differentiation, and the potential for fission and conflict along group lines remains high.

To reduce the impact of ingroup–outgroup distinctions, some social psychologists have recommended combining the mutual differentiation and common ingroup identity models—creating contact conditions that preserve category identities at both subgroup and superordinate group levels. When participants simultaneously see themselves as members of different groups but also as part of the same superordinate category, intergroup relations between subgroups are more positive than in the absence of the common identity. Moreover, dual identities may also lead to even more positive outgroup attitudes than those associated with a superordinate identity alone.

Research on the dual identity model of intergroup contact challenges the assumption, implicit in much previous work in intergroup relations, that social identities are mutually exclusive, with only one social categorization (ingroup–outgroup differentiation) salient at any one time. New research is beginning to explore the implications of holding multiple group identities, or identities at different levels of inclusiveness, simultaneously. The hope is that a better understanding of the combined effects of mutual differentiation, cross-categorization, and recategorization will provide the social psychological underpinnings for successful pluralism in multicultural societies.

Bibliography:

1. Adorno T W, Frenkel-Brunswick E, Levinson D J, Sanford R 1950 The Authoritarian Personality, 1st edn. Harper, New York
2. Allport G W 1954 The Nature of Prejudice. Addison-Wesley, Cambridge, MA
3. Brewer M B 1979 In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin 86: 307–24
4. Brewer M B, Brown R J 1998 Intergroup relations. In: Gilbert D T, Fiske S T, Lindzey G (eds.) Handbook of Social Psychology, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA, Vol. 2
5. Brewer M B, Miller N 1996 Intergroup Relations. Open University Press, Buckingham, UK
6. Brown R J 1995 Prejudice: Its Social Psychology. Blackwell, Oxford, UK
7. Doise W 1978 Groups and Individuals: Explanations in Social Psychology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
8. Gaertner S L, Dovidio J F, Anastasio P A, Bachman B A, Rust M C 1993 The Common Ingroup Identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. In: Stroebe W, Hewstone M (eds.) European Review of Social Psychology. Wiley, Chichester, UK, Vol. 4, pp. 1–26
9. Hewstone M, Brown R (eds.) 1986 Contact and Conflict in Intergroup Encounters. Blackwell, Oxford, UK
10. LeVine R A, Campbell D T 1972 Ethnocentrism: Theories of Conflict, Ethnic Attitudes and Group Behavior. Wiley, New York
11. Miller N, Brewer M B (eds.) 1984 Groups in Contact: The Psychology of Desegregation. Academic Press, Orlando, FL
12. Pettigrew T F 1967 Social evaluation theory: Convergences and applications. In: Levine D (ed.) Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, Vol. 15. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE
13. Pettigrew T F 1998 Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology 49: 65–85
14. Sherif M 1962 Intergroup Relations and Leadership. Wiley, New York
15. Sherif M 1966 In Common Predicament. Houghton Mifflin, Boston
16. Sidanius J, Pratto F 1999 Social Dominance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
17. Sumner W G 1907 Folkways. Ginn, Boston
18. Tajfel H 1978 Differentiation Between Social Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Academic Press, London